From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261551AbVACSNg (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:13:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261525AbVACSJj (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:09:39 -0500 Received: from animx.eu.org ([216.98.75.249]:7567 "EHLO animx.eu.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261731AbVACSJP (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:09:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 13:18:21 -0500 From: Wakko Warner To: Adrian Bunk Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 Message-ID: <20050103181821.GC31911@animx.eu.org> Mail-Followup-To: Adrian Bunk , 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> <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 X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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