Hi,
On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Tomas Szepe wrote:
> > Has anyone conducted any tests to determine what is the most stable (as in
> > reliable) kernel available?
>
> There is no such test because there's no way to describe "being stable"
> in formulas.
>
> You might as well like to stick with a kernel that has worked for you
> for a long enough time. If you don't need the features of 2.4, go with
> 2.2-latest.
Well, about stability: I'm running 2.4.19-rc1-aa2 for some days now, I
didn't yet have any problems. My sparc64, meanwhile, is running 2.5.24-ct1,
stable for more than a week of uptime yet.
Regards,
Thunder
-- (Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode) ------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------ Version: 3.12 GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$ N--- o? K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G e++++ h* r--- y- ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 15 2002 - 22:00:23 EST