Re: 2.0.31

Steve VanDevender (stevev@efn.org)
Mon, 14 Jul 1997 14:58:25 -0700

Michael Scott Shappe writes:
> > Yes, we need it. Really, world needs stable Linux kernel. 2.0.30 isn't.
>
> Perhaps it isn't for you. In which case perhaps you should be trying, as
> so many other have said, one of the EARLIER kernels, like 2.0.29.
>
> Better yet, report your problems so they can get fixed, instead of simply
> complaining about instability and hoping that the next rev will fix it.

I've actually been running pre-2.0.31-2 on my home machine since not
long after it came out, with few problems (the oddest thing happening
was having init die on me, but only once -- I may still have the oops in
my log files if anyone's interested). It's been stable for me, although
I have a rather lightly-loaded system. And the 2.0.30 system I maintain
for a friend has had an excellent record so far. Admittedly, it's also
not a super-loaded system, but it stays up for weeks and hasn't had to
be rebooted for crashes.

Nevertheless, I would like to see a 2.0.31 to fix the bugs that have
been reported. But I'd hope that will hold everyone until 2.2, as any
more time spent on 2.0.x is just going to take time away from
development on the 2.1.x kernels.