Why not try not maintaining any Linux kernels at all... Let people
that want to use toys for servers fend for themselves... Fisher Price
Unix...
> 2.0.x is a babe in the woods in Linux time. While it is 'stable' by
Linux
> standards, it is not settled out and solid like 1.2.13 ELF is.
Witness the
> rather rapid evolution of the kernel revs.
Stable? Linux? They've never had a stable version out there yet. I
started messing with Linux at 0.96 or something like that. It'd crash
consistantly on my 386DX/40, then I tried Slackware 2.3, then Slack
3.0.... Slack 3.0 would run on my 386DX/40, but took 10 minutes to
give me a shell prompt, then when I asked it to do anything, it would
spontaniously die. I've NEVER had FreeBSD do that EVER. Now, yanking
the HD power cable did annoy it a bit, and the time I accidentally
half-removed the ethernet card, but other than that its never crashed
on any of my hardware.... From the 4 meg 386SX/16 (which ran as my
webserver during a really sad part of the evolution of my ISP - the
time when the real webserver pretended to die) to the 48-meg Cyrix
6x86/P166+...
Now, my big question is why does Livingston support Cracker Jack Box
Prize un!x (Linux) and not a stable business OS like FreeBSD? BSDI
bins don't generally like to work for me, and when they do they are
wasteful on CPU and memory..
And, plus, FreeBSD doesn't put out a new "stable" release every two
days... Things are actually tested and work when released.
Thank you, Drive through
Jacob Suter