Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:46:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:46:29 -0400 Received: from pD9E235D3.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.226.53.211]:3205 "EHLO hawkeye.luckynet.adm") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:46:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 10:48:46 -0600 (MDT) From: Thunder from the hill X-X-Sender: thunder@hawkeye.luckynet.adm To: Tomas Szepe cc: JorgP , Subject: Re: What is the most stable kernel to date? In-Reply-To: <20020712163546.GO29993@louise.pinerecords.com> Message-ID: X-Location: Potsdam; Germany 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: 1171 Lines: 33 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/