Re: Notebooks

david (david@kalifornia.com)
Sun, 16 Aug 1998 17:59:55 -0700

Reply to mail from David Lang about Notebooks
> I disagree, If we stop calling them "unstable" then people will start to
> depend on them and if we have a buggy version it will cause more problems.
> Yes some of them are more stable (we are after all getting ready to roll
> over to 2.2) but the fact remains they are development version, things are
> new, untested and (probably) will break at least on some systems.

people do depend on them. they -are- stable. i have greater uptimes on
my 2.1 machines than several of my friends on 2.0 machines...perhaps we
should refer to 2.0 as 'unstable'

unstable != development. these are development kernels, not unstable
kernels.

things break on 2.0 systems. ref: quota races, teardrop, etc. anything
'new' needs testing regardless of the kernel it goes into. if you use new
untested stuff in a production environment, you have nobody to blame but
yourself.

-d

-- 
Look, look, see Windows 98.  Buy, lemmings, buy!   
(c) 1998 David Ford.  Redistribution via the Microsoft Network is prohibited.
 for linux-kernel: please read linux/Documentation/* before posting problems




-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html