Re: kernel source -- 2.0.29 vs 2.0.30
On Sat, Nov 08, 1997 at 02:15:51PM -0500, Will Lowe wrote:
> Ok, I applied some patches to my last kernel compile in an attempt to
> make it Cyrix aware, and it didn't work :) So now I need to reinstall
> the kernel-src package and recompile myself a new kernel.
> I've heard rumours of "bad things" about 2.0.30, and I'm wondering if
> anyone has a recommendation of one verses the other. I don't need
> anything exotic in the kernel -- just sound, tcp/ip, ethernet, ide,
> all standard stuff.
Try one and see if it works? 2.0.29 should always work.
I run it on my off-site production machine, where I need it to be
stable. But I run 2.0.30 on my home server and it works just fine too,
but hardly any load. Then there's 2.0.31 ..
Hamish Moffatt, StudIEAust firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Student, computer science & computer systems engineering. 3rd year, RMIT.
http://hamish.home.ml.org/ (PGP key here) CPOM: [***** ] 58%
The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. --Bohr
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .