Re: "stable" 2.1.xx?

Simon's Mailing List Account (
Fri, 21 Nov 1997 17:57:33 -0500 (EST)

I haven't had any crashes with 2.1.65, though it hasn't been
under particularly tremendous loads.


On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, John Jannotti wrote:

> I know what I'm asking for is something of a contradiction in terms,
> but is there a fairly stable 2.1.xx kernel? I'm working on a set of
> modifications to Linux that I'd like to make generally available if
> they turn out to be useful. I've been working on 2.0.30, but there
> are a few things in the 2.1.xx series that might make my life easier -
> and if the mods end up useful, I figure they are more usable if they
> can be applied to more recent kernels. Anyway, is there a revision
> number that is more likely to be helpful due to the new features in
> 2.1 than harmful due to the increased instability?
> jj

Simon Karpen
Sysadmin, Shodor Education Foundation

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!], `Pray,
Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right
answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of
confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage