Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264032AbUDQTWW (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:22:22 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264040AbUDQTWW (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:22:22 -0400 Received: from dragnfire.mtl.istop.com ([66.11.160.179]:1989 "EHLO dsl.commfireservices.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264032AbUDQTWV (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:22:21 -0400 Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 15:22:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Zwane Mwaikambo To: Mario Vanoni Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: IMHO the usability of 2.6 In-Reply-To: <40817D22.2030107@bluewin.ch> Message-ID: References: <40817D22.2030107@bluewin.ch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1043 Lines: 28 On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Mario Vanoni wrote: > Tested 2.6.1[-mm#] and 2.6.5[-aa#]: > inexplicables crashes, mouse, NFS etc., > on 2-3 of our 8 Linux machines (0.1-6 years old), > not usable for production, need five 9 (99.999). > I don't have logs, always switched back to 2.4.25. > > Starting with AT&T UNIX SVR2 (1986, rock solid), > later Linux 2.0, then 2.2, then 2.4, > 2.4.17 was the 1st veritable stable 2.4 kernel. > 2.4.25 had an uptime >=33 days before changing > all machines to 2.4.26. Stable since 1-3 days. > > Feedback only and > kind regards Well, thank you for testing the 2.6 kernel at least, but as far as bugreports/feedback, this one is found wanting. There is absolutely nothing we can do to help you based on what you have provided and you may as well have not posted. Zwane - 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/