Re: 2.0.31 : please!

Stephan Meyer (
Tue, 15 Jul 1997 18:33:54 +0200 (MET DST)

On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Alan Cox wrote:
> > reading this group, by and large, are the people you speak of. But
> > people who aren't hackers, and who are interested in Linux as an
> > operating system, don't care why there isn't a stable kernel -- they
> > just care that there isn't. We've seen how easy it is to be blown off
> > by the major trade publications just because they can't RTFM. If we
> > don't have a stable kernel, we don't have a prayer.

Thank god, Linu[sx] hasn't gone commercial. Please don't create
unnecessary pressure.

> You also don't need to be a hacker to help. The biggest single problem with
> testing a new 2.0.x kernel is getting enough test data. Every single person
> who sticks 2.0.31pre3 (when its out) on a machine and sees if it works -even
> if the stick it on for the day and reboot back to 2.0.27 before they go
> home, even if they just fire it up on a home machine and play quake under
> it for an hour makes a difference. And if it doesnt work try and get a log
> of the Oops message if you get one or file a report giving the hardware
> info if it just mysteriously "doesn't work".

That's very well put.

2.0.30 is oopsing more or less damaging ever since I set up the NFS
server on the intranet/gateway/file server at school.
I'll definitely install pre3. I'm not running pre2, since I can't keep
track of all the follow-up patches.

I would never whine on the kernel-ML.

Rather post bug-reports.
If you can make use of 2.0.30 ISDN/NFS/masq/Adaptec2940 bug-reports,
please tell me.

> Alan

Stephan, wishing he had time for debugging the kernel.

Stephan Meyer
2A 64 F0 73 02 91 10 FC 18 CC 83 1E E2 2C 7E 79