[BusyBox] quite OT: 2.2.x or 2.4.x?

[Tom Cameron]

Micheal,
	I would say that BB and the 2.4.x kernels go quite well.  I have
been using 2.4.x since 2.4.0 on BB, and have had no real major problems
at all.  Any audits have already been taken care of, and things are
quite smooth now (from my perspective).  Anyway, that's that.

--
Thomas Cameron
Network Technician / Operations Specialist
St. Mary's Bank

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Michael Renzmann [SMTP:mrenzmann at web.de]
> Sent:	Monday, April 23, 2001 4:54 AM
> To:	busybox
> Subject:	[BusyBox] quite OT: 2.2.x or 2.4.x?
> 
> Hi.
> 
> Another (and I promise: this will be the last OT-mail from me next
> time,
> really! :) ) offtopic question (at least it is partially related to
> busybox).
> 
> I'm to build an embedded linux distro which is going to be used within
> the routers of an local ISP. Besides acting as normal router it should
> also work as firewall (better: paket filter) to provide some security
> for the connected networks. The really important thing is that the
> result must be stable, as the routers will be placed on a badly
> accessible place later. 
> 
> The question for me is: should I use kernel 2.2.19 (which seems to be
> nearly as stable as a rock) or would it be better to use 2.4.3 (maybe
> 2.4.4 if it is released soon)? I would like to use 2.4.x. IPTables
> seems
> to increase the possibilities of the kernel firewall code a lot. On
> the
> other hand the release frequency for 2.4.x updates is still quite
> high. 
> 
> The next question (and to get back to bb again :) ) is: if I would
> choose to use 2.4.x, how about support of this kernel version with the
> current busybox release? Any problems to be expected?
> 
> I would be glad if some people on this list could help me with that
> decision... if too offtopic, reply by private e-mail. Many thanks in
> advance.
> 
> Bye, Mike
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> busybox mailing list
> busybox at busybox.net
> http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox