On 14 Aug, this message from Mike Fedyk echoed through cyberspace: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 09:31:26PM +0200, Michel Lanners wrote: >> On 13 Aug, this message from Mike Fedyk echoed through cyberspace: >> > On Sat, Aug 11, 2001 at 09:25:29AM -0700, Jeffrey W. Baker wrote: >> > Let me ask this question also, but for oldworld machines, specifically, >> > 7200, 6500, and oldworld g3. >> > >> > Will kernel.org ppc 2.4 kernels be ok for these systems? The systems I >> > would be running would mostly be headless routers, file & print servers, >> > and such. >> >> >> Either kernel.org 2.2 tree, or the bk or benh 2.4 trees. 2.4 kernel.org >> isn't ready yet. >> >> If you want to keep your servers running quietly in a corner without >> touching them, 2.2 might be your best bet. Since you will not need all >> the fancy new hardware support in 2.4, 2.2 is your best stable solution. >> It's a bit slower than 2.4, but that shouldn't matter for your use. >> > For the machines that I *really* need to humm away, and keep working I'll > use 2.2. > > For 2.4, which tree breaks the least? Hopefully, there is a tree that will > supply a bootable kernel that doesn't break core functionality depending on > the time of day...
I am quite happy with BenH's tree. As long as disk space permits, I keep old trees around, and especially one marked as 'good' ;-). That's the kernel I run for day-to-day use, when not trying out newer kernels. That is at this time probably the best approach to 2.4 kernels: try BenH's kernels for some time, and stick to one that works well for you. Cheers Michel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michel Lanners | " Read Philosophy. Study Art. 23, Rue Paul Henkes | Ask Questions. Make Mistakes. L-1710 Luxembourg | email [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.cpu.lu/~mlan | Learn Always. "
