Re: 2.0 release estimate ?
Matt Thompson <mattyt@oz.net> writes:
> > In my opinion, if you're willing to be even a little adventurous,
> > unstable's quite usable now.
> >
>
> I agree. I upgraded fully to hamm about 1 month ago. I'm also running
> kernel 2.1.59. Things are very stable for me. No reboots for about a
> week (and that was to print something from P*b97 :( ). FVWM2 locked once
> during this time, but I just killed and restarted it.
Just to throw in my two cents worth...
The process of upgrading from stable to unstable is, at this point,
somewhat difficult but not horribly so. Obviously there is a bit of
work to be done before the final release, but I have no doubt that
such work can be easily accomplished.
Once the system has been upgraded, I have had no major problems with
unstable. A few minor bugs here and there, nothing serious. The
worst has been a problem with rxvt, but one can always switch to
xterm.
I have used kernels 2.0.29 and 2.0.31 with unstable without any
problems at all.
--
John Goerzen | Developing for Debian GNU/Linux (www.debian.org)
Custom Programming | Debian GNU/Linux is a free replacement for
jgoerzen@complete.org | DOS/Windows -- check it out at www.debian.org.
----------------------+----------------------------------------------
Find out how to avoid all those pesky crashes, lockups, application errors,
and slow applications at http://www.debian.org -- Debian can replace Windows
95 with a much more stable operating system.
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: