On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 12:49:36PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
| On Tue, 2002-06-11 at 21:44, schnobs@babylon-kino.de wrote:
| > Hi,
| >
| > at the risk of starting yet another uncontrollable thread...
| >
| > On 5 Jun 2002 at 8:37, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
| [snip]
| >
| > While I'm about it, there's more I'd like to know. Like, what is wrong with 2.4 kernels?
| > Still running 2.2 and don't know what I'm missing, either, but I'm wondering. The 2.2 /
| > 2.4 issue seems to be a popular topic, but I never got the point.
| [snip]
|
| What *is* wrong with 2.4? I've got kernel-source-2.4.18
| running perfectly on 2 boxen.
How'd you get the *source* to run? ;-). I have to compile it to a
binary first on my box ...
Ok, now to the real answer -- I've been running various 2.4 kernels
since 2.4.7. The kernels prior to 2.4.10 had some VM issues where it
would swap more than it should. I've been running 2.4.18 for a long
time and haven't had any problems with it.
What's *wrong* with them, from a release perspective, is
o they are newer
o they kept changing significantly during the early release
cycle (more like a devel kernel than a stable one)
o they haven't had as much testing (stress, interoperability,
esoteric hardware)
o the only thing *wrong* with a 2.2 kernel is it doesn't have
the new features in 2.4
o new features surely mean new bugs to be worked out
From a *release perspective*, 2.2 is a safer decision than 2.4. You
wouldn't want woody to be uninstallable or have weird stability
problems on people's machines, now would you? Thus 2.2 is the default
while 2.4 is still a choice for those who want it.
HTH,
-D
--
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not
in us.
I John 1:8
Jabber ID : dman@dman.ddts.net
GnuPG key : http://dman.ddts.net/~dman/public_key.gpg
Attachment:
pgpT3Qpm1Zy7F.pgp
Description: PGP signature