Re: hurry up already with official 2.4
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu wrote:
> It has been out for over a year and I have yet to see a version of it that
> is stable. Every week I hear of yet another problem with the latest 2.4
> kernel. I still run 2.2.19 on my main computer.
I run one sub-version or another of 2.4 on all of my machines at home and
can definitely say that it's not ready to be the default kernel in a
Debian release. Sure, performance is better in most cases, etc, but let's
look at the facts: Alan and Linus JUST NOW settled on which VM they should
stick with, DRI modules were broken on many cards and archs for at least
half of the 2.4 versions, more than half of the 2.4 versions don't compile
or boot on at least one of the non-i386 archs....need I go on?
2.4 is in too much flux to really even be called a stable branch,
IMO. The VM discrepency between Alan's and Linus' trees was horrid and
neither of the VM choices are mature enough to really know how well
they'll perform on some setups.
In short, including 2.4.14, I'd definitely choose a 2.2 kernel to go out
with woody, personally...at least on the archs that didn't have major
problems with 2.2 (basically, alpha and i386...the rest I defer to the
various port maintainers).
> 2.4 on my laptop seems to be doing great, but I'm not necessarily pushing
> it to the max (and it does crash in certain situations...)
I've crashed 2.4 on all of my machines, but things are slowly getting
better. I think once 2.5 development starts, we'll see 2.4 stabilise
quite a bit....if it does, maybe it'll be ready for r1 :-)
C
Reply to: