Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2

2002-02-19 Thread Dimitri Maziuk
* Gary Turner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: ... > 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 beca

Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2

2002-02-19 Thread Hans Ekbrand
On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 11:18:39PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > 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 m

Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2

2002-02-18 Thread ben
On Monday 18 February 2002 09:18 pm, Gary Turner wrote: [snip] > 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.

Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2

2002-02-18 Thread Ron Johnson
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:18:39 -0600 Gary Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 th

Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2

2002-02-18 Thread Jeff J.
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? > &

Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2

2002-02-18 Thread Gary Turner
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

Re: Which Kernel 2.4.* or 2.2

2002-02-18 Thread Ron Johnson
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,