Re: new beta?

[Gordon Messmer <yinyang eburg com>]

Benjamin Vander Jagt wrote:
> I still don't understand the version numbering scheme for the Linux
> Kernel.  are 2.x kernels unstable if x is an odd number?

It's not so much stable vs. unstable as stable vs. development.  The odd 
numbered minors (version is <major>.<minor>.<revision>) are where all of 
the really important stuff gets changed around, worked out, and 
developed.  New schedulers, elevators, major IO subsystems, etc, are 
going to be see major changes in the development branch if they're going 
to see major changes at all.

> I'm just
> wondering why 2.2 and 2.4 went up to the 20's, and 2.5 is up to 70 and
> have not been seen anywhere...

The development series requires many more releases while they're making 
bigger changes.

> if it is numbered like that, why not
> just have all released ending with 0 (e.g., 2.2.0) be stable and
> everything in between be unstable?

What would they number a release that was a bugfix to the 2.2.0 ?  The 
"stable" series still sees development, and occasionally even backports 
of bigger changes made during the development series, should they prove 
stable.

> I'm also really confused about the 2.5 kernel itself.  what do I need to
> do to get the thing to boot without locking up?

Since the development kernels are really only meant for developers, 
you're probably best off using the stable kernels.  If you're interested 
in becoming a developer, I'd start with the "stable" kernel, so that 
it's more clear whether any problems you have are a result of your 
changes, or massive bugs introduced by another developer.  Also, 
starting from one of Red Hat's kernel sources will give you a point of 
reference against a kernel that was properly configured and working.