[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Google
  Web www.spinics.net

Re: tux on 2.4.27 kernel and referrer checking



Very interesting discussion...  A question for all of you: How do you
define "stable"?  How do you measure it?  Have you seen crashes with 2.6
kernels?  Are they reproducible?

I'm using Fedora Core 2 (with official updates) in a high loaded, high
traffic production server and it is very, very stable.  Right now it has
25 days of uptime.  It could be more by now, but some reboots have
prevented it.

The only problem I have is TUX (not using it right now) and that's why
I'm subscribed to this list.  Anyway TUX is not present in the official
kernel anymore.

-William


El mi? 27-10-2004 a las 17:32, Marek Habersack escribió:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 03:10:28PM -0700, joe scribbled:
> > >It most definitely isn't. The fact that RedHat or SuSe ship with the 
> > >kernels
> > >doesn't mean the kernels are stable. The reality is that 2.6 has some
> > >security issues that are pending fixes 
> > >
> > Hate to break it to you, but 2.4 has issues as well, and will have more 
> > in future.
> Never said it doesn't. What kind of response is that? If you want to prove
> to me 2.6 is stable, don't do it by trying prove 2.4 sucks, since that's not
> really a serious argument.
> Every piece of software has will always have issues (even the vendor-patched 
> kernels, believe it or not). The thing is, as it stands now, 2.4 is more stable 
> than 2.6 (and less bug-ridden), which is NOT to say 2.4 is better than 
> 2.6 (which it is not). As the sign of the 2.6 development stability, let 
> me quote Andrew Morton's words (talking about 2.6.10-rc1-mm1):
> 
> - This kernel is probably pretty crappy - there is a _lot_ of stuff
>   happening and the quality of the patches which I am receiving seems to be
>   gradually dropping off. 
>  
> Now, keep in mind that a lot of the stuff goes up to the mainline kernel.
> There goes the stability myth (note that 'stability' is not only that it
> 'does not break under the load' but also the number of fixes applied to the
> software considered stable/stabilized)
> 
> > Perhaps you should go with 2.0.40, that one is very stable, and also 
> > safe from sco lawsuits ;)
> SCO lawsuits... I don't believe anybody would ever mention that
> commedy seriously. Somebody showed me a great mail sig today, btw:
> 
> - Hello, this is Darl McBride, and I pronounce Linux as UNIX.
> 
> I can tell you how I pronounce SCO in private, it shouldn't be said in
> public.
> 
> take care,
> 
> marek
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> 
> tux-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/tux-list


[Older Fedora Users Mail]     [Home]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [iPod Nano]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Bible]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

Powered by Linux

Google
  Web www.spinics.net