Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Survey: Linux kernel qualitySurvey: Linux kernel qualityPosted Jul 11, 2006 2:01 UTC (Tue) by jsedwards (guest, #38952)Parent article: Survey: Linux kernel quality
While I have only found a couple of specific bugs myself, my overall feeling is that 2.6 is not as stable as 2.4 was. When we upgraded from the 2.6.7 to 2.6.9 although it fixed some problems, we also had new problems we didn't have before. I can't help but think that part of the problem is doing development in the stable build. For one of the applications I have been working on it would have been much better to not have to deal with new features and major changes to subsystems everytime we upgrade.
(Log in to post comments)
Survey: Linux kernel quality Posted Jul 13, 2006 10:50 UTC (Thu) by toni (subscriber, #17559) [Link] I also forgot to mention one or the other kernel problem, but I agree to the assessment that the 2.6 series having no consistent quality. One of these was unable to mount my parallel IDE drive which is no problem with an older version that has known security holes, and on another machine, going from 2.6.16 to 2.6.17 sort of breaks disk access (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377959). But at least it brought back sound which was lost from 2.6.12 to 2.6.16 ;-}
On the downside, I must note that I don't test every kernel variant, but only change the kernel when I suspect that a new kernel might have a fix for (my) known breakage, so error reporting isn't what it theroetically could be.
|
|||||||||||||