| 1 |
I second that. Been using hardened-dev-sources for a month or two now, and |
| 2 |
it is much faster with Apache and so on. Lots of neat features, too. |
| 3 |
Stable as a rock. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Lance Albertson schrieb am 10/15/2004 05:36 AM: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> You should look at hardened-dev-sources if you want to see the upcoming |
| 8 |
>> hardened 2.6 kernel. It seems fairly stable for me, although I haven't |
| 9 |
>> run it on many boxes. It worth at least testing! |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I'm running hardened-dev-sources on 4 different servers with different |
| 12 |
> setups for several months now (apache, dhcp, dns, ftp, ntp, nfs, samba, |
| 13 |
> battlefield 1942 server, teamspeak server etc.), and I didn't have any |
| 14 |
> kernel-based problems so far. hardened-dev-sources seem to be quite |
| 15 |
> stable to me, and as kernel 2.6 is much faster than kernel 2.4, I prefer |
| 16 |
> hardened-dev-sources to hardened-sources. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Michael. |
| 19 |
> |
Archives