Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2
All of our Debian boxes at work (servers and workstations) use 2.4.x and I
don't think we've ever had any issue with the 2.4.x series. As always, your
mileage may vary.
Jeff J.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Turner" <kk5st@swbell.net>
To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 12:18 AM
Subject: 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?
>
> gt
> Yes I fear I am living beyond my mental means--Nash
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
---
This message is certified virus free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.324 / Virus Database: 181 - Release Date: 2/15/2002
Reply to: