Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Jul 1997 06:56:48 +0200 (MET DST) | From | Stephan Meyer <> | Subject | Re: 2.0.31 : please! |
| |
On Wed, 16 Jul 1997, Daniel G. Link wrote: > Hi, > > I find the handling of criticism in this thread disturbing.
Constructive criticism gets handled much better.
> Of course, Linux is great. Of course, people are making great efforts to > make it as good as possible. But how are programmers going to be made > aware of conceptual weeknesses if it is only allowed to praise them?
That's not true. Noone said that. Don't get rhetorical.
> To put it very bluntly: In order for it to flourish, it has to be possible > to point out weaknesses in free software without the programmers > threatening to commit suicide and hundreds of yes-men jumping to their > defense, shouting "kill the whiner".
There's a difference in between "there seems to be a bug"/"it could be made faster by.." and "get your butt up and release that patch".
> What good is free software if you aren't supposed to criticise it because > it's free?
Again not true.
> There are users out there. These people will get the concept that there > are 2.0.X and 2.1.X kernels out there, but they will not understand why > they shouldn't use the newest of the "stable" kernels.
And why shouldn't they?
> At least for me and some other people, 2.0.30 and 2.1.[28-42] have been > especially bad kernels. My first kernel was 0.99.12. Never before the > above mentioned kernels have I had kernels that don't even compile or > freeze the system within the first five minutes.
I'm sure there have been other not-so-stable 2.0.x kernels.
------------------------------------------------ Stephan Meyer Stephan.Meyer@pobox.com http://pobox.com/~stephan.meyer/ 2A 64 F0 73 02 91 10 FC 18 CC 83 1E E2 2C 7E 79 finger stephan.meyer@pobox.com ------------------------------------------------
| |