On Thu, July 28, 2011 10:42 am, Jarry wrote: > On 28-Jul-11 15:36, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > >> options IMHO are: >> >> - 2.6.32.x (has performance issues, but is long term) >> - 2.6.38.x (good performance, not longterm yet) >> - 3.0.x (immature, but the future) > > May I ask why you did not include the latest longterm 2.6.35 > (which I'd personally vote for)? possibly because 2.6.35 is not as well supported as 2.6.32 and until today i questioned whether it was still maintained. i've tracked both 2.6.32 & 2.6.35 for the last three months (because i'm slowly standardizing from the former to the later due to newer hardware requirements and only wanting to maintain a single kernel version). the last 2.6.35 longterm release (2.6.35.13) was three months ago (exactly from today, the 28th). during that time 2.6.32 has been updated 4 times (.40 - .43). whenever i've heard about a new 2.6.32 release it's reminded me to check on the status of 2.6.35 (looking in the linux-2.6.35.y & longterm-queue-2.6.35 git repos on kernel.org) and until today (prompted by your email) i hadn't seen any signs of life since early May. it appears andi is working on it again, as of 2 days ago, and i don't mean to disparage his work, but when greg has been releasing a new 2.6.32.y once or twice a month without a single 2.6.35.y release for three months, which would you choose? corey -- undefined@pobox.com