Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:18:21 -0500
From: Wakko Warner <wakko@animx.eu.org>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: starting with 2.7
Message-ID: <20050103181821.GC31911@animx.eu.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1697129508.20050102210332@dns.toxicfilms.tv> <20050102203615.GL29332@holomorphy.com> <20050102212427.GG2818@pclin040.win.tue.nl> <20050102214211.GM29332@holomorphy.com> <20050102221534.GG4183@stusta.de> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0501031019110.25392@chimarrao.boston.redhat.com> <20050103152953.GE2980@stusta.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050103152953.GE2980@stusta.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1002
Lines: 24

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> My personal impression was that even the 2.6.0-test kernels were much 
> better than the 2.4.0-test kernels.
> 
> But 2.6.20 will most likely still have the stability of the early 
> 2.6 kernels instead of a greatly increased stability as observed in 
> 2.2.20 and 2.4.20 .

In my experiences, 2.6.8 and above have been quite unstable for me.  I was
able to crash 2.6.8.1 as a normal user over nfs (I thought that was fixed?)

2.6.9 gave me problems with USB and random lockups.  2.6.7 has been fairly
stable for me, but I honestly do not see 2.6 as a stable kernel.  From my
past experiences, 2.4.x (low numbered) was just as stable as 2.6 has been or
more so.

-- 
 Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
-
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/