That attitude might help keep the developers who make linux not quit in
disgust. That helps if you ask me.
> reading this group, by and large, are the people you speak of. But
> people who aren't hackers, and who are interested in Linux as an
> operating system, don't care why there isn't a stable kernel -- they
> just care that there isn't. We've seen how easy it is to be blown off
2.0.30 has been fairly stable for me, admit-ably it has it's quirks, and
I've even had apply a patch or two for it, but overall it's remarkably
stable. I've got all my machines running on 2.0.30 with uptimes approaching
one month now. Most of my downtime has been hardware related. I did need
Leonard Zubkoff's deadlock patch for one of the SMP machines I have, but
hell, I don't think anyone expected 2.0.X smp to work as well as it does --
it's damn stable now too.
> by the major trade publications just because they can't RTFM. If we
> don't have a stable kernel, we don't have a prayer.
I guess it speaks volumes when people get annoyed with linux and uptimes
under a month and at the same time people have no problems with NT crashing
much more often -- and no way to keep it from doing so. I for one don't
think the developers should be held to such high standards, but kudos to
them for reaching them anyway.
I do hope that David Miller does decide to keep on developing 2.0.x, I
hope he realizes the vocal minority are _not_ representative of everyone
else. None the less, if he wishes to have help, he has my time and
resources at his disposal.
- Steve
.------------------------------------------------. # * # # # # # #
| Steve Baker | Barely Working | # ## # # # # #
| ice@mama.indstate.edu | System Administrator | # # # # # # # #
| Red-Hat Rulz! | Will work for hardware | # # # ## # # # #
`-- SYS-ADMIN FOR HIRE, HAVE UNIX, WILL TRAVEL --' #### # # # ## # #