On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 12:42, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 18:11, Russell King wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 09:01:04AM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > The news media hasn't picked up on this yet, they seem to think that
> > > 2.6.0 is something that will be useful.  It won't be, there will be a
> > > period of months during which things stablize and then you'll see the
> > > distros pick up the release.  I don't remember where it was exactly
> > > (2.4.18?) but Red Hat waited quite a while before switching to 2.4
> > > from 2.2.  This is normal and it works out quite well in practice.
> > 
> > Red Hat did a 2.4.2 release which was 2.4.2 + a lot of stability changes.
> 
> which was basically a 2.4.4-pre 
> 
> > IIRC, RH7.2 was based on 2.4.7,
> 
> 2.4.7 lived for half a day but the VM of 2.4.7 was so bad we had to go
> to 2.4.9 immediately..

I remember trying stock 2.4.7...it was the first 2.4.x kernel I tried
and I wasn't all that impressed (and i had a plethora of problems).  I
didn't like 2.4.9 much either to be honest, but it was a lot better than
earlier 2.4.x releases.  2.4.x is where I learned exactly what Larry
stated earlier in the thread about stable kernels taking a while to
actually stabilize.  But when they do, the result is quite worth it. 
And for the record, I'm finding 2.6-test kernels more stable than early
2.4.x release kernels, so I think you guys have a come a long way and
done an awesome job.  I think 2.6 is going to be a kernel that blows
away people who whined about 2.4s desktop performance.

Kudos guys for a job well done,

Stan