Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2
On Monday 18 February 2002 09:18 pm, Gary Turner wrote:
[snip]
> 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?
>
my understanding of the kernel numbering system is the same as yours. as far
as bugs in the 2.4 series are concerned, i've found 2.4.17 to be as bug-free
as it gets, so far, after two months of use. 2.4.14 crashed every 2 to 3
days, and that seems to have been a common experience according to accounts
given on the list. i believe it had something to do with usb negotiation.
ben
Reply to: