[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Why Linux is doomed (was: Re: FENRIS (nwfs) 1.4.2 Source Code Available)
On 23 Jun 1999 wrote:

> Sorry, but if the second most frequently used file system does not
> compile, then don't release it.

But what's the problem? When it doesn't compile in x.y.z, report the
problem, receive a patch or use x.y.z-1 and wait for x.y.z+1. This is
the price one has to pay running the latest kernel.


Why? E.g. Ingo Molnar fixed a nasty problem with my SMP box during the end
of 2.1 within a few days while NT 4.0 just trashed the hard disk during
installation and ends up with a blue screen.
The guy at M$ didn't even knew the error messages NT gave me. So they just
send me another CD and a book with pictures of Gates visiting Germany.
Now tell me who's doomed? :)

Your first mail was about FAT not compiling for 2.3.7. Please note, like
many others have already told here, that all 2.3.x kernels are developer
kernels. This means they're experimental and may explode without warning,
taking you and all your data into nirvana.

> > > Management summary: stuff like this sucks. I am but a programmer with a
> > > SMP box that likes to run the latest kernel.

Being a programmer with an SMP box is no excuse for running the latest
kernel without knowing what `the latest kernel' implies. (Beside the fact
that it's really cool to run the latest kernel :) )
I'm too a programmer with an SMP box but I do like to run a stable kernel
because in case of errors I have to be sure were the error lurkes. My code,
the compiler, libraries or kernel? So I'm currently running 2.2.5 compiled
with gcc (I went back from 2.2.9/10 after some people reported


TOAD -- A Simple and Powerful C++ GUI Toolkit for X-Windows
Freely available at
__(/_--_\)___________ Mark-Andr
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans