| |||||||||||||
2.0.382.0.38Posted Apr 13, 2006 4:14 UTC (Thu) by pm101 (guest, #3011)In reply to: Quote of the week by nix Parent article: Quote of the week
Agreed. Upgrade to 2.0.40 already. Sheesh.
(The kernel of choice for people with low-memory systems. Or who want to be able to go through the kernel configuration script by hand in a reasonable amount of time. Or who want their kernels to almost always compile once configured (assuming the right version of the toolchain). Or who want to avoid the bugs, crashes, and data corruption associated with running the no-longer-odd-numbered unstable devel series kernels of the 2.6 era. Although I agree; 2.2 or 2.4 is better for most applications).
(Log in to post comments)
2.0.38 Posted Apr 18, 2006 21:45 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] The stable kernels are 2.6.16.x, not 2.6.x. Think of it that way and all will be well. Since I started using it in 2.6.10 the 2.6 series has seemed really hot stuff to me: bitten by one nasty swap-killing UltraSPARC bug in 2.6.10, fixed by davem in hours... you can't pay for that sort of response time, and the only way to get it is to use a kernel at least somewhat similar to that used by the upstream developers.
(Major data-corruption events experienced here with 2.6: 0.
Does my anecdote defeat your anecdote?)
|
|||||||||||||