On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 18:18:09 -0500 "David A. Bandel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 15:35:54 -0600 > Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [snip] > > > > > No flame bait intended. I have no objection to xfs; I may even try > > it some day. "Most people who care about their data ..." is, of > > course, flame bait as well. The one thing I won't do (based on the > > comments I found in the xfs archives) is use an experimental kernel > > and expect from xfs developers the "amazing amount of patience" you > > have experienced, most especially not if I'm running the accursed > > distro. > > What exactly are you referring to as an "experimental" kernel? The > only experimental kernels I'm aware of are some of the hacked kernels > Gentoo uses. Both RH and Debian use relatively conservative patches. > I personally use a vanilla kernel. But 2.6.7 (the latest) isn't any > more experimental than the latest 2.4.x kernel. The three most common that I see on the gentoo listings (information, not complaints, interestingly enough) are the mm, ck, and love kernels probably in that order from experimental to just plain wild. Two of the complaints I reviewed from xfs referenced these. mm is typically a little bit ahead of the vanilla kernels, and feeds back into the vanilla kernels, as I understand it. -- /\/\ ( CR ) Collins Richey \/\/ fly Independence Air - they run Linux _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsub/Pause/Etc -> http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
