Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 1997 18:33:54 +0200 (MET DST) | From | Stephan Meyer <> | Subject | Re: 2.0.31 : please! |
| |
On Mon, 14 Jul 1997, Alan Cox wrote: > > reading this group, by and large, are the people you speak of. But > > people who aren't hackers, and who are interested in Linux as an > > operating system, don't care why there isn't a stable kernel -- they > > just care that there isn't. We've seen how easy it is to be blown off > > by the major trade publications just because they can't RTFM. If we > > don't have a stable kernel, we don't have a prayer.
Thank god, Linu[sx] hasn't gone commercial. Please don't create unnecessary pressure.
> You also don't need to be a hacker to help. The biggest single problem with > testing a new 2.0.x kernel is getting enough test data. Every single person > who sticks 2.0.31pre3 (when its out) on a machine and sees if it works -even > if the stick it on for the day and reboot back to 2.0.27 before they go > home, even if they just fire it up on a home machine and play quake under > it for an hour makes a difference. And if it doesnt work try and get a log > of the Oops message if you get one or file a report giving the hardware > info if it just mysteriously "doesn't work".
That's very well put.
2.0.30 is oopsing more or less damaging ever since I set up the NFS server on the intranet/gateway/file server at school. I'll definitely install pre3. I'm not running pre2, since I can't keep track of all the follow-up patches.
I would never whine on the kernel-ML.
Rather post bug-reports. If you can make use of 2.0.30 ISDN/NFS/masq/Adaptec2940 bug-reports, please tell me.
> Alan
Stephan, wishing he had time for debugging the kernel.
------------------------------------------------ Stephan Meyer Stephan.Meyer@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~stephan.meyer/ 2A 64 F0 73 02 91 10 FC 18 CC 83 1E E2 2C 7E 79 finger stephan.meyer@pobox.com ------------------------------------------------
| |