Re: kernel's
>In regards to the 2.0.36 kernel, I feel it would be best to use 2.0.35
>as the first choice of kernels for its stableness, and 2.0.36 for the
>secondary. 2.0.36 as I understand is still a tad shaky, but yes, does
>offer more support for the Adaptech cards.
I've been busy building a network for the past few months so help me out
with this one.
I know that the kernel versions have always been numbered even if they are
stable and odd if they are not considered a stable version. Normally a
kernel would remain in an odd version number until it is patched and stable,
then is released with the next even number.
This would mean that 2.0.36 is actually 2.0.35 with any instability fixed
and renumbered.
So, help me out with this one, has that changed in the past few months?
As usual, my feeling for
>the next release would to be 100% stability all across the board, and
>using 2.0.35 would be my first choice, so new users to Debian do not
>need to hassle with kernel probs But, I do feel that 2.0.36 would/should
>be included as well. Just my thoughts and ramblings..:)
>
>Bill Gates, circa 1995...Quote "this anti-trust thing will blow over
>soon" unquote...*snicker*
>
>______________________________________________________
>Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>
>--
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-testing-request@lists.debian.org
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-testing-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: