Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2
* Gary Turner (kk5st@swbell.net) spake thusly:
...
> 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?
Yep. In practice, it takes several revisions for stable kernels to
really stabilize. 2.4 in particular, has a few VM problems -- earlier
versions killed processes if swap space was < 2xRAM, current revisions
apparently suck under heavy load.
LKML is available via mail->news gateway as linux.kernel. Read it
on dejagoogle if you want details.
Dima
--
Riding roughshod over some little used trifle like the English language is not a
big deal to an important technology innovator like Microsoft. They did just that
by naming a major project dot-Net (".Net"). Before that, a period followed by a
capital letter was used to mark a sentence boundary. --T. Gottfried, RISKS 21.91
Reply to: