On Thu, 2013-03-14 at 03:02 -0500, Mark Allums wrote: > Some of the 'buntus use 3.4, don't they?
Packages for Quantal are already > 3.4, but it's unstable. However, it isn't unstable regarding to the kernel. I also build kernels myself for Ubuntu, it still is buggy as hell. On Arch Linux everything is stable with 3.7 and 3.6-rt. In the past I sometimes, very seldom had bad kernels, but most of the times kernels released by https://www.kernel.org/ were stable. I very often had unstable versions of distributions installed, but not the kernel was the reason for the instability. For good reasons I'm not using Debian at the moment. It's not stable enough for my taste, on my machine, for my usage and workflow. YMMV. There always should be a base system, separated from the rest user space. So if you have a minimal install of what distro ever, this always should be stable and it usually is. The short version: If https://www.kernel.org/ says a kernel is stable, even rt patched kernels, than they most of the times are stable. Sometimes a new stable rt patched kernel does perform less good, than an older version, but that doesn't make them unstable. The advantage of free as in speech *nix OS is, that kernels that are released as stable usually are stable and that a basic system usually also is stable. You can't do anything against cosmic rays from the super nova next door and you cant provide thousands of user space packages that by any combination will keep the system stable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1363253576.654.206.camel@archlinux
