many people beleive that 2.4.xx should have stayed at 2.3.xx for a bit
longer.. not only that.. changes have been made in 2.4.xx that most people
think should have waited until 2.5.xx ( a complete VM rewrite in 2.4.10)
give 2.4.xx some more time and it'll settle down.. hopefully more so once
2.5.xx starts up..
Jason
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Russell Hires wrote:
> Are we talking about kernels? According kernel.org, 2.4.10 is the latest
> stable version, and 2.4.11-pre6 is alpha...2.5.xx is supposed to be the next
> round of testing kernels.
>
> Meanwhile, I don't understand why there are so many crashes with any of these
> kernels...why isn't 2.4.xx stable? I know about the high load issue, but
> that's all I've heard about it. 2.2.19 is very stable....
>
> Russell
> On Tuesday 09 October 2001 17:02, you wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Oct 2001, Ron KA4INM Youvan wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Both libraries are available, and I will be going
> > > to 4.5.10 as soon as I figure that procedure out.
> >
> > You realize that 4.5.10 isn't guranteed to be 'stable'?
> >
> > You should use the lastest 4.4.XX series if you want stability.
> >
> > If you read the README in the Documentation directory under the linux/
> > tree you will see which libraries and what versions are necessary for the
> > specific kernel it came with.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > | Mark Bishop (mark@bish.net) | Computer Engineer |
> > | 813-253-2197 | Network Engineer |
> > | http://bish.net | Embedded Programmer |
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 15:08:23 EDT