> Believe it or not, there are a few (ahem) folks running SMP systems in
> production, and the 2.0 kernels may not be the cat's meow, but they
any 2.0 SMP box that is not strictly cpu-bound is basically crippled.
> Besides it's hard to brag about months of uptime if you're rebooting to
> install new kernels. :-)
this doesn't imply that you must run each one. can anyone produce evidence
that no 2.1 is as stable as 2.0? 2.1 is the product of over 2 years of
concerted effort, most of which will never benefit anyone running 2.0.
remember, 2.0 is basically bug-fixes since June 6, 1996.
