On Thu, 25 Nov 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously J.A. Bezemer wrote: > > I don't follow kernel development, but 2.2.13 has been out since 20 Oct, and > > >1 month without update (or errata on www.linux.org.uk) is really long for > > >any > > stable kernel. So I think "a lot of bugs" in 2.2.13 is a little overstated. > > Correct me if I'm wrong... > > > > There have been frequent updates, look at all the 2.2.14-pre patches.
Of course, updates. But are those updates fixing bugs? Critical bugs? Security bugs? Or are they only adding features? IMHO&AFAIK: some, very few, none, and most, respectively. Let me just say: 1) 2.2.13 is definately _much_ better than 2.2.5; 2) if you don't include 2.2.13 "because there are updates" you can't include any kernel at all because updates are almost daily; 3) we're dedicated to providing some quality of service to our users, isn't it? And now we're discussing this: there is 2.0.38 which _does_ fix security bugs in 2.0.36. And yet we're still using 2.0.36 for our "stable" systems..? Regards, Anne Bezemer
