Kerenels : who stable is unstable?

Kerenels : who stable is unstable?

Post by Stev » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:00:32



Hi;

I know the stable kerenel is something like 2.4.2 and that there is a
beta 2.5* kerenel.

I hear about a lot of people using 2.5, though 2.5 is supposed to be
"unstable".

How stable is "unstable"?  Does that mean 2.5 is usable, but not
perfect?  Does it crash? Lock up? Lose data?

Just curious

Steve

 
 
 

Kerenels : who stable is unstable?

Post by Sybren Stuve » Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:40:09


Steve enlightened us with:

Quote:> I know the stable kerenel is something like 2.4.2 and that there is a
> beta 2.5* kerenel.

Right, except that it's 'kernel' not 'kerenel'.

Quote:> I hear about a lot of people using 2.5, though 2.5 is supposed to be
> "unstable".

Nope, not a lot of people use 2.5.

Quote:> How stable is "unstable"?  Does that mean 2.5 is usable, but not
> perfect?  Does it crash? Lock up? Lose data?

It means it's completely unstable. If you're asking these kind of
questions, then you should avoid unstable kernels. They can ruin your
complete system.

Quote:> Just curious

Just stay away from them unless you know what you're doing - and you
don't ;-)

Sybren
--
| Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that |
| the pens will multiply instead of disappear.                      |
\-------------------------------------------------------------------/
If you have to use Outlook, fix it: http://jump.to/oe-quotefix

 
 
 

Kerenels : who stable is unstable?

Post by Scott Hoffma » Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:32:40



> Steve enlightened us with:
>> I know the stable kerenel is something like 2.4.2 and that there is a
>> beta 2.5* kerenel.

> Right, except that it's 'kernel' not 'kerenel'.

Actually, 2.4.2 is quite old.  The latest stable kernel is 2.4.20.

Quote:

>> I hear about a lot of people using 2.5, though 2.5 is supposed to be
>> "unstable".

> Nope, not a lot of people use 2.5.

2.5 is the current development kernel.  This means that features may be
incomplete or unstable.

Quote:>> How stable is "unstable"?  Does that mean 2.5 is usable, but not
>> perfect?  Does it crash? Lock up? Lose data?

> It means it's completely unstable. If you're asking these kind of
> questions, then you should avoid unstable kernels. They can ruin your
> complete system.

You have to be the judge here.  I would not consider anything after 2.5.60
to be unstable.  On the other hand, it will take a bit of work to get a
development kernel installed, as there are pieces such as
'module-init-tools', that are included in the latest Linux distributions.

Quote:>> Just curious

> Just stay away from them unless you know what you're doing - and you
> don't ;-)

> Sybren

The kernels that come from RedHat actually have a number of features
'back-ported' from the development kernels.  So if you grab their latest
kernel from the '9' product, you're pretty much on the 'bleeding-edge' of
technology, without the fuss of trying to build your own kernel.

Don't get me wrong though, if you can manage it, building your own kernel
from the sources on kernel.org can be fun.

Good Luck.

Scott

 
 
 

Kerenels : who stable is unstable?

Post by Sybren Stuve » Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:37:01


Scott Hoffman enlightened us with:

Quote:> You have to be the judge here.  I would not consider anything after
> 2.5.60 to be unstable.

Someone who doesn't know what a development kernel is should.

Quote:> Don't get me wrong though, if you can manage it, building your own
> kernel from the sources on kernel.org can be fun.

Definitely! Just stick to stable kernels and you'll have loads of fun
:-)

Sybren
--
| Somebody ought to cross ball point pens with coat hangers so that |
| the pens will multiply instead of disappear.                      |
\-------------------------------------------------------------------/
If you have to use Outlook, fix it: http://jump.to/oe-quotefix

 
 
 

1. Beta, alpha, stable, unstable but what they exactly means ?

Hi guys, may be this is an OT question...
anyway I'd like to hear from you about
alpha and beta code definitions...

alpha:

beta:

stable:

unstable:

If a program is in its first release it works, but is untested
and is going to be improved in the future how to call it ?

Well, I think You've got it...

--

|                                      |
+------------------ think Open Source -+

2. Memory

3. Staying Stable in an Unstable World

4. Reusable modules for C -- like in Perl?

5. Solaris to solaris unstable, Solaris to HPUX stable??

6. niskit problems

7. unstable/stable Debian

8. plip under RedHat 6.1 not working for me

9. Unstable (3.0) Kernel compiles not on stable 2.2.6

10. 4.0-RELEASE to 4.1-STABLE is unstable

11. kerenel won't compile

12. Q: kerenel update 1.1.50-->1.2

13. Upgrade from 3.4-STABLE to 4.x-STABLE