I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have!
Amen Fred. After being wholly dissapointed with Mandrake 8.0, 8.1, 8.2, 9.0, 9.1, 9.2 for that exact reason. I was thrilled with Suse 8.2 and 9.0. The jury is still out on 9.1 for reasons you describe. 9.2 needs to be bulletproof from a server standpoint. I look to move my production system to 9.2 after the list settles down regarding little glitches. Keep stability in mind! My Mandrake 7.2 box is getting very old. -- David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E. Rankin * Bertin, PLLC 510 Ochiltree Street Nacogdoches, Texas 75961 (936) 715-9333 www.rankin-bertin.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Miller" <fmiller@lightlink.com> To: <suse-linux-e@suse.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [SLE] 9.2 and BAD kernel.
On Tuesday October 12 2004 6:58 pm, Philipp Thomas wrote:
Fred Miller <fmiller@lightlink.com> [Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:27:10 -0400]:
Why is SUSE going to use the 2.6.8 kernel?! The reports on 2.6.8 AREN'T good!!
Have you forgotten that SUSE employs a number of kernel hackers? This isn't the vanilla 2.6.8!
Why not 2.6.7....it was stable?!
And have a vast number of people bashing SUSE because of an "ancient" kernel?
I wouldn't!! STABILITY my friend - that IS what most of us want and MUST have! I don't need grief, like we have now, for example getting XCDRoast to allow users to burn a CD, and getting a number of hardware to work properly. I'm not picking on SUSE, you should know that by now.
Fred
-- "Running Windows on a Pentium is like getting a Porsche but only being able to drive it in reverse with the handbrake on."
-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com