Re: Linux versions

>
> From: psp@... (Phil Plumbo)
>
> >The current version requires a 2.0.36 kernel (or maybe it
> >is just that the Xwindows interface is unreliable with 2.0.33 or so). Anyway,
> >all of us had nasty user interface hangups on 2.0.33, and they all went
> >away once upgraded to 2.0.36
>
> I just browsed ftp.us.kernel.org looking for a linux kernel, and found they
> have versions all the way up to 2.3. They have 2.0.36 which is dated Nov 17
> 1998, and lots of later versions. If anyone has tested EMC with later
> versions let us know, otherwise my software development instincts tell me to
> stick to 2.0.36.
>
> ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/kernel/v2.0/linux-2.0.36.tar.gz
>
> Phil Plumbo

Just in case anyone isn't aware of the Linux release numbering scheme,
kernels numbered with a .even number are stable production kernels.
E.g. 2.0.xx, 2.2.xx, etc. Kernels numbered with an odd point number,
2.1.xx, 2.3.xx are DEVELOPMENT kernels for folks who like to be on the
bleeding edge. The third number is the sequence number of the release.
New features are hacked out in the development releases, then folded
into the production release once they're stable.

Since I need my systems up and don't have the time to tinker with
the kernel, I use the even point releases. Unless you're really brave, I
don't think I would use a development release to controll a CNC machine.

In several years of using Linux going back to the 1.0 kernels, I've
only had one instance where I had to reboot because of a problem with
the kernel (and it wasn't specifically a kernel problem, but related to a
piece of software that was executing at the time). I'm currently running
a combination of 2.0.36 and 2.0.30 on my machines.

--
Paul Amaranth | Rochester MI, USA
Aurora Group, Inc. | Software Development
paul@... | Unix / C / Tcl-Tk