I'm runing my server on 2.4 series Kernel and heard alot of critics on that. This Kernel is outdated, get 2.6 series, they're way better, less vulnerable etc etc...
Thus I had some people say, good choose 2.4 series, because they're more stable, less vulnerable etc etc..
I've heard good and bad about both of them, but not with exact "problem" if I may call it so. No one actually told me this is whats better here than there, you know, with some hard proof.
So now I'm kind of confused.
I'm not asking you witch kernel would be better for my server. But I want to see some compliments with proof saying, this is better here than there. So that I then may better choose betwen those two.
And if 2.4 is far more stable than 2.6 and security is on a somewat same level then 2.4 it is.

2.4 is certainly far more stable in the sense it doesn't change much. With 2.6 you can easily find stories, how needed-to-boot userspace tools failed when new kernel was installed (search Greg K-H Andrew Morton udev), how hard drives on PATA bus got renamed hda-sda-hda, and surely in current active branch new hardware gets supported in the moment when you expect least - leading to device renaming (didn't check if it is easy to find, for example, network driver addition threads).

On the other hand, go to secunia.com and compare number of advisories. Seems that bugs get fixed in 2.4 at good speed, but they are not added so quickly. Features too - but you have good-working setup, as I understand.

PS. I run 2.6-mm kernels. But it is on laptop, and I run rather bleeding edge system anyway.
PPS. No, not really bleeding edge - I always install X.org releases after release, not before.