Re: Request for 2.4.20 to be a non-trivial-bugfixes-only version

[Rene Rebe]

On: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 20:59:18 +0200,
    Erik Ljungström <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Apr 2002 15:11:07 +0200 (CEST)
> Rene Rebe <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > Hi.
> > 
> > I think that you used exactly the worser kernels between the good ones
> > ... ;-) 2.4.16 was really good and 2.4.18 is, too. 2.4.19-pre5 looks
> > also very promissing, so far.
> 
> What's wrong with the 2.4.17 kernel? I have'n had a better one since the 2.2.19 :)

It procuded unresolved symbols in several configs and oopsed in the
ipv6 support ... - I did not experienced this with 2.4.16 or 2.4.18
;-) - I did not saw 2.2 kernels for years ;-)

The only problems I had with 2.4 were the NFS+reiserfs and
NFS+smy-links problems and the obvious broken 2.4.9 (or was it .10?)
and 2.4.15 ...

k33p h4ck1n6
  René

--  
René Rebe (Registered Linux user: #248718 <http://counter.li.org>)

eMail:    [e-mail]
          [e-mail]

Homepage: http://drocklinux.dyndns.org/rene/

Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be
charged $25 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting my
address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms.