Re: Don't use kernel 2.4.15/2.5.0 (fs corruption)

[Stig Brautaset <stigbrau@start.no>]

* nate <debian-user@aphroland.org> spake thus:
> Craig Dickson said:
> 
> > Your call, of course, for your machines. But in general I've found
> > 2.4 to be pretty decent. I had something like two months of uptime
> > with 2.4.9 before I decided to upgrade it to 2.4.12-ac3, which in
> > turn ran for a few weeks flawlessly before I decided to upgrade to
> > 2.4.15... which was a mistake, to judge from the postings we've
> 
> [..]

<snip lots of uptimes>

> once linux 2.4 gets to the point of 1 upgrade every 6-8-10 months then
> it'll be stable enough for me..i tried 2.4 on a desktop at home a
> couple months ago and it wouldn't even boot..

Not trying to sound like a wise-guy here, but I don't think you should
blame the kernel's stability for you failing to make it boot. 

Sounds more like a configuration error to me (which is ok, I remember
the config being a bit different from 2.2.x to 2.4.x...). 

Just my £.02 ...

Regards,
Stig

-- 
brautaset.org
Registered Linux User 107343