On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Brian Ballsun-Stanton wrote:
>
> Unfortuantly, we'll still be using w2k clients. Now, not having my head
> completly buried in my ::cough:: I knew that samba could provide file
> sharing. Little did I know that samba-tng would provide good w2k access.
>
> This is my dilemma: to run samba-tng, I have to upgrade to "unstable." My
> mandate explictly states that downtime is *BAD*, very, very, very,
> bad. How risky is running unstable? What shouldn't I do? Should I upgrade
> to 2.4.6? (I'm running a home box as a testbed for this, so I'll be warned
> slightly in advance, but...)
>
> I'd love any advice or assistance.
just to clarify by "unstable" do you mean the debian
"unstable" distribution or a 2.4 kernel?
if the former read below - others will be better able to advise on the
stability of the 2.4 kernels (but I've had no probs so far)
It's not necessary to upgrade to unstable just to run a 2.4 kernel -
hunt in the archives of this list - and I'm sure there is a reference on
how to get a 2.4 kernel running with potato.
Another possibilty is to go halfway and just upgrade to woody
(testing) - If been running it for ages on my home box and nothing much
has gone wrong at all - but be aware that security updates take longer
to find there way into woody than the stable or unstable distros
>
> If anyone wants to help, or discuss this over lunch, I live in LA, and
> I'll be going to rochester, NY, for 3 days next week. I'd love to actually
> discuss this with someone who knows what they're talking about.
>
sorry - I live in Adelaide, South Australia and there is some doubt that
I know what I'm talking about :)
cheers
dc
--------------------------------------------------------
Today people in droves hurry up past Heumoz to Villars
on the road to the ski hills, so they can rush down them
as fast as possible, so they can hurry up again in order
to rush down again. In a way this is funny,...
Francis A Schaeffer
David Purton
http://www.chariot.net.au/~dcpurton/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
