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.
