[Gllug] 2.6 versus 2.4 stability

[Daniel P. Berrange]

On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 03:32:53PM +0100, Adrian McMenamin wrote:
> The post I've just sent makes me wonder on the more general point (if
> it's just me or do others agree): is 2.4 more stable than 2.6?

Given the change in kernel development model, you'd probably need to
distinguish between upstream kernels 2.6.x, upstream 'maintence' 
kernels (2.6.x.y) and the vendor kernels (2.6.x + patches). I think
its fair to say 2.4.x kernels are more stable than general 2.6.x 
kernels - the general 2.6.x kernels are probably best described as
semi-stable, with the intention that vendors work off them to form
a really stable & tested platform. Now whether the vendor stablized
2.6.x kernels are more stable than 2.4 is an open question...

Dan.
-- 
|=-            GPG key: http://www.berrange.com/~dan/gpgkey.txt       -=|
|=-       Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/              -=|
|=-           Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/               -=|
|=-   berrange at redhat.com  -  Daniel Berrange  -  dan at berrange.com    -=|
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 240 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug/attachments/20050804/e88b9cc6/attachment.pgp>
-------------- next part --------------
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug