> > Complaining and not downloading the most recent releases is probably the most unproductive thing a person could do. > > Oh I've downloaded it and compiled it and had just booted it when I saw the > post on Slashdot. Had I not read that right away I could've lost data, which > I might expect from a development kernel, but not in the stable branch. I had 2.5.0 running on two machines I build Andrea's patch and rebooted. The next day I built 16-pre1 and everything is fine. The corruption was nothing fsck couldn't fix -- If there was any at all. I didn't hear of anyone actually losing data. Of course one was my laptop which is disposable since everything important is kept on the fileserver running 2.2.20 and the other was a test server that I've been playing with. I am a little more daring with those machines. The whole stable, testing, devel argument is a good one also. If 2.4.x was stable, then what was 2.2.20? In my mind 2.4.x wasn't stable because Linus was maintaining it. 2.2.x was the stable branch. Linus maintains devel kernels and recently has made a point of proving that. hrm scrapping a VM... There is the argument that he only moved to 2.4.x because everyone was afraid of 2.3.x and there weren't enough people running it. Not because 2.4.x was stable. Anyhow, I'm sure a lot of people will think twice before knee-jerk compiles. :-) -- Marc A. Ohmann Digital Solutions, Inc http://ds6.net marc at ds6.net