Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:10:32 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:23:40 +0100 Tim Dijkstra <tim@BLUHBLAH.famdijkstra.org> wrote:
>> Is there any reason, not to run a 2.4.* kernel?
>There are those who think that 2.2 is more stable than 2.4 in
>production server environments.
>Being a home user, I haven't had any problems with 2.4, starting
>with 2.4.3, up to 2.4.17.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood. It was my impression that
the odd numbered kernel sub-versions eg., 2.1, 2.3, 2.5 are/were
testing/unstable. When they are ready for prime time, they are
promoted. Thus 2.1 became 2.2, 2.3 became 2.4, and the current working
version 2.5 will become 2.6 when ready for release. Is there any reason
to thinks that there are anything more than minor bugs in 2.4.x?
Yes I fear I am living beyond my mental means--Nash