All of our Debian boxes at work (servers and workstations) use 2.4.x and I don't think we've ever had any issue with the 2.4.x series. As always, your mileage may vary.
Jeff J. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 12:18 AM Subject: Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2 > On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:10:32 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: > > >On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:23:40 +0100 Tim Dijkstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Is there any reason, not to run a 2.4.* kernel? > > > >There are those who think that 2.2 is more stable than 2.4 in > >production server environments. > > > >Being a home user, I haven't had any problems with 2.4, starting > >with 2.4.3, up to 2.4.17. > > > 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? > > gt > Yes I fear I am living beyond my mental means--Nash > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- This message is certified virus free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.324 / Virus Database: 181 - Release Date: 2/15/2002
