On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 11:18:39PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > 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? Where x is smaller than, say 15, yes indeed. When it comes to the latest releases I don't think so. There was a thread on the stability of the 2.4.x series 6-10 November 2001 in debian-user. Personally, I had problems with 2.4.12. Now I run 2.4.16, and it survived my VM test, that 2.4.12 collapsed under. I would go for 2.4.16 or higher (2.4.15+ gives you ext3).
Attachment:
pgpwWHvk3QCba.pgp
Description: PGP signature