lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on
    On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 09:07:27AM -0700, yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu wrote:
    > > Unfortunately, I think it is a problem you have to take up and deal with.
    > > Recompiling sources for entire server setups in a live production
    >
    > So you use the 2.0 version until a 2.2 version stabilizes. The problem
    > really is that the Linux unreliable development kernel is so good that
    > people actually want to run production systems on it, and then complain when
    > it does not stay stable.

    2.2 is supposed to _be_ stable, not gradually stabilize. That's what 2.1/2.3 are
    for.

    >
    > > Besides, binaries are still the best way to get up and running as fast as
    > > possible. Waiting to bring up a replacement server because it's still
    >
    > Really? And what about waiting until the binary only patches get shipped by
    > the vendor. For those of use with experience on binary only systems, this
    > complaint is completely mysterious.

    tell that to redhat/debian whoever.

    >
    > Here's my suggestion. If you want to work with the development kernel
    > in production mode with binary sources,

    binary sources? heh. See above, anyway: the original complaint was not
    about 2.1 kernels pulling the rug from under ur feet, but about 2.0 kernels
    doing that.

    > pay for it. That is, get someone or some organization to agree to
    > maintain a binary compatible version of the system and to provide you
    > with updates. There are many people who will do this.

    what do u think MIT is doing? u seriously expect the best university in
    the world to outsource stuff like this?

    >
    > The argument: "we are using the open source kernel developed by other
    > peoples work to make money and therefore the developers that we don't
    > pay need to follow our requirements", is not a persuasive one.

    true. the point however, is that if the developers don't follow _some_
    requirements, pretty soon they might be the only ones running the system.
    That is not something anybody here _wants_ to see happen.

    -- arvind

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.041 / U:29.764 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site