Ok, I understand. 2.2.23 is stable. But why aren't they using the new
2.4.5 kernel? Or are they (debian), but their release number doesn't have
anything to do with the kernel version?
Jay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Jay Salzman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [vox-tech] If I was to install debian
> jay, not quite.
>
> kernel versions are divided into 3 numbers. the most recent stable
version
> is 2.4.5:
>
> 2 is called the version
> 4 is called the patchlevel
> 5 is called the sublevel
>
> when the *patchlevel* is odd, it's a beta kernel; when the patchlevel is
> even, it's a stable kernel.
>
> the sublevel can be anything in beta or stable.
>
> also, realize that when you're talking about "stable" in kernel
development,
> it doesn't mean that anything that's not stable is "unstable", as in it
> crashes; this is a common misconception.
>
> stable / unstable refers to the code that goes into the kernel. a stable
> kernel is a codebase that doesn't change. an unstable kernel codebase is
> one which has new features going into it with each sublevel.
>
> pete
>
>
> begin: Jay Strauss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quote
> > If I was to install debian and download:
> >
> > /debian/dists/stable/main/disks-i386/2.2.23-2001-04-15
> >
> > I assume that means I'm using the kernel 2.2.23??? Isn't that an
unstable
> > version of the kernel (i.e. stable versions are even numbered,
development
> > versions are odd)
> >
> > Jay
>
> --
> "The following addresses had permanent fatal errors..." [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- Mailer Daemon
www.dirac.org/p
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
