Re: SEUL: "Core" proof-of-concept

[George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org>]

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, Rick Jones wrote:

> I used 2.0.30 for about a year, I gues and didn't see any problems. 
> What did you observe?  Do I need to check for any contamination?

2.0.30 was buggy for some people.  First bugs started appearing right
after its release last April. The answer at that time was to go back to
2.0.29.  One of the main problems were page faults unger load.  It had
some VM problems that would cause swapping to fail.

> It was my understanding that the odd numbered kernels denoted unstable
> and were changed to the next even number once the bugs were ironed out. 
> Is this not the case?

Odd release number ... not odd patch-level.

Example: All. 1.3 kernels are unstable, all 1.2 or 1.4 are stable.

all 2.0 are stable, all 2.1 unstable, all 2.2 stable, etc.


George Bonser 
If NT is the answer, you didn't understand the question. (NOTE: Stolen sig)
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.