> > 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
Repeat after me. There are stable kernels, there are stable kernels, ....
[last reboot: N/A system was built 114 days ago]
Linux hoth 2.0.29 #7 Mon Feb 24 19:47:11 EST 1997 i586
12:03am up 114 days, 6:35, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
[last reboot: upgrade from 2.0.25 after I hosed the kernel with some
bad firewall rules]
Linux chewbacca 2.0.27 #4 Thu Dec 26 13:15:46 EST 1996 i586
12:06am up 118 days, 10:24, 12 users, load average: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
[last reboot: upgrade from 2.0.25 due to spontaneous reboots]
Linux ewok 2.0.27 #4 Thu Dec 26 13:15:46 EST 1996 i586
12:03am up 175 days, 11:16, 68 users, load average: 0.13, 0.42, 0.35
[last reboot: upgrade from 2.0.25 due to spontaneous reboots]
Linux endor 2.0.27 #4 Thu Dec 26 13:15:46 EST 1996 i586
12:04am up 184 days, 8:47, 62 users, load average: 0.41, 0.54, 0.40
[last reboot: upgrade from 2.0.23 for big ping protection]
Linux crash 2.0.25 #6 Wed Nov 13 17:11:18 EST 1996 i486
12:04am up 243 days, 9:13, 1 user, load average: 0.70, 0.42, 0.17
[pre-2.0.31-1 plus some patches running ircd with 300+ simultaneous users]
[last reboot: upgrade from same version for synflood reporting patch]
Linux irc 2.0.30 #6 Mon May 19 12:52:30 EDT 1997 i586
12:07am up 56 days, 10:53, 7lusers, load average: 0.30, 0.92, 0.58
[kernel above doing 120 virtual web servers and primary DNS for a few
hundred zones]
[last reboot: upgrade from same version for synflood reporting patch]
Linux kashmir 2.0.30 #6 Tue Apr 29 17:01:26 EDT 1997 i586
12:10am up 68 days, 4:45, 1 user, load average: 0.17, 0.44, 0.36
[early 1.2.13lmp kernel doing a few virtuals]
[last reboot: hell if I can remember]
Linux ron 1.2.13 #1 Sun May 5 17:04:10 EDT 1996 i586
12:11am up 435 days, 6:43, 1 user, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Don't even try to tell me Linux can't be stable. I'm sitting here waiting
to see just what happens when the jiffy counter wraps. :) Sure 2.0.30
could be better, and it will...but you basically have 3 choices. Dig in
and help fix the few remaining bugs. Test it as much as you can, submit
clear bug reports and wait for those who are capable to fix it. Or sit
back, shut up, and just wait for it. Dave and others do this because they
like doing it. As has been seen, if they cease to like it, they cease to
do it.
People who "don't care why there isn't a stable kernel" and whine about it
on linux-kernel are shooting themselves in the foot. Maybe this whole
thing was just ploy by BillGatus of MicroBorg to derail linux kernel
development...hmmm....
[none of this is aimed at ice...I'm basically replying to whoever he was
replying to.]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis <jlewis@fdt.net> | Unsolicited commercial e-mail will
Network Administrator | be proof-read for $199/message.
Florida Digital Turnpike |
________Finger jlewis@inorganic5.fdt.net for PGP public key_______