On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 12:21:36PM -0500, mdanish@andrew.cmu.edu wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 09:09:29AM -0800, David Larsen wrote: > > ok guyz > > i use debian on a few computers. but i think its pretty bad that you don't > > have an official 2.4kernel based distro. yeah, i know that woody is in the > > 'frozen' stage, and you can modify potato to use 2.4 kernel, but for cryin > > out lout, kernel 2.4 has been out over a year now. i see countless people > > 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. actually lets correct this non-fact in the orginal whin^H^H^H^Hposters message. 2.4 was released January of 2001 iirc. we have not yet passed January of 2002 thus 2.4 cannot have been `out for over a year now' the -test preXX-testYY-prerelease-XX versions don't count, those were pre 2.4.0 as thier assortment of names points out. > 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...) > > YMMV, but personally I'm a little leery of the 2.4 kernel as a stable kernel. its finally getting there, but i too still run 2.2, now 2.2.20 since .19 has security holes. I would suggest if the user who posted wants a 2.4 kernel by default he should switch to an architecture where debian is using one due to it being more stable/complete on that port. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgpMIHXTVnXW8.pgp
Description: PGP signature