Re:Which releases are production stable?
by
GigsVT
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This is not the way it's "supposed" to be. It might be true, but don't present it that way. Even versioned kernels are SUPPOSED to be stable. All of them. Patchlevel kernel revisions on the even number trees are not supposed to be anything but bugfixes.
-- I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Re:Which releases are production stable?
by
ajs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If you're grabbing the kernel-o-the-week, I suggest you're always going to be "less than production quality". Vendors like Red Hat, SuSe, Mandrake, etc. spend a whole lot of time integrating new kernel releases with their operating systems. This can include bug-fixing, testing on a number of hardware platforms, retro-fitting patches from development versions that are required for certain business segments and even beta periods for certain cutting-edge features (e.g. Red Hat's long trails internally and externally of the ext3 filesystem).
You should probably think of the stable kernels as just that: stable. That doesn't mean they are ready for prime-time. It's more like a "stable branch". You expect this to be the branch from which the distributions will craft The Right Kernel for their platforms.
Should you use such a kernel, then? Yes, but only if a) you're in a non-mission-critical situation or b) you "must have" a certain bug-fix and are willing to put in the Q/A yourself.
Think of the linux kernel as released on kernel.org like Mozilla. This is like a milestone release. Netscape will come out with something based on it which has Java, Flash, some back-ported bug fixes from later nightlies, etc. The corporate user should probably wait and go with a Netscape release, but here I am submitting this comment from a nightly;-)
Slashdot Mirror
This is not the way it's "supposed" to be. It might be true, but don't present it that way. Even versioned kernels are SUPPOSED to be stable. All of them. Patchlevel kernel revisions on the even number trees are not supposed to be anything but bugfixes.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
If you're grabbing the kernel-o-the-week, I suggest you're always going to be "less than production quality". Vendors like Red Hat, SuSe, Mandrake, etc. spend a whole lot of time integrating new kernel releases with their operating systems. This can include bug-fixing, testing on a number of hardware platforms, retro-fitting patches from development versions that are required for certain business segments and even beta periods for certain cutting-edge features (e.g. Red Hat's long trails internally and externally of the ext3 filesystem).
;-)
You should probably think of the stable kernels as just that: stable. That doesn't mean they are ready for prime-time. It's more like a "stable branch". You expect this to be the branch from which the distributions will craft The Right Kernel for their platforms.
Should you use such a kernel, then? Yes, but only if a) you're in a non-mission-critical situation or b) you "must have" a certain bug-fix and are willing to put in the Q/A yourself.
Think of the linux kernel as released on kernel.org like Mozilla. This is like a milestone release. Netscape will come out with something based on it which has Java, Flash, some back-ported bug fixes from later nightlies, etc. The corporate user should probably wait and go with a Netscape release, but here I am submitting this comment from a nightly