On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 03:54:25PM -0700, nate wrote:
> which is great, at this rate, i think 2.4.20 or 2.4.21 will be good.
> I want a kernel where when a new rev comes out nothing in it is considered
> very important and is highly reccomended to upgrade(e.g. fix bad
> bug, security fix etc). 2.2.19 is at that state for me now, even
> though 2.2.20 is i think over a year old i still have no immediate
> plans to use it. theres a couple minor issues in 2.2.19 but i can
> live with it. 2.0.36 was at this stage back in the day too ..
2.2.20 is over a year old, has no known security holes, and you still
won't use it, despite the problems you have with 2.2.19? Is it just a
matter of uptime, or is there another reason?
> in the meantime i either do without the 2.4.x features, or
> use another OS to do something that 2.2.x isn't good at(e.g.
> freebsd for packet sniffing). i've used 2.4.x off and on,
> and just don't see a pressing need to upgrade. slap on all
> the major changes it's gone through before it hit the new
> maintainer and that makes me want to let it cool off for
> a few revisions before i think about using it again.
I've noticed you say this a few times, so I'm wondering exactly what
problems you've had with 2.4?
* IPTables seems to be a vast improvement over ipchains in nearly every
way, and I've only heard of one or two bugs since 2.4.0 was released.
* The VM system (at least since 2.4.11) seems (to me, and most everyone
I've spoken to) an improvement on 2.2, especially under high load.
* Increased filesystem support, which is especially useful for servers.
Both ReiserFS and XFS are ('in general') faster than ext2, and support
nifty things like ACLs and extended attributes.
> i wish there was a place where i could get backported critical
> patches for the kernel, if i could i'd still be on 2.2.10
> which was(other then 2.2.19) the most solid kernel i've used.
It probably doesn't exist because it's so much more hassle to backport
things to 2.2 when most people would just upgrade to the next version of
2.4. Given the major architectural changes between 2.2 and 2.4, do you
think the backport would be significantly more stable than just
upgrading to the latest 2.4?
Increasingly curious,
Rob
Attachment:
pgpeEaSif1XXj.pgp
Description: PGP signature