Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sun, 2 Jan 2005 17:19:35 -0800 | | From | William Lee Irwin III <> | | Subject | Re: starting with 2.7 |
| |
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 04:30:11PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> The presumption is that these changes are frivolous. This is false. >> The removals of these features are motivated by their unsoundness, >> and those removals resolve real problems. If they did not do so, they >> would not pass peer review.
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 01:45:51AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > The netfilter people plan to remove ipfwadm and ipchains before 2.6.11 . > This is legacy code that makes their development sometimes a bit harder, > but AFAIK ipchains in 2.6.10 doesn't suffer from any serious real > problems.
They're superseded by iptables and their sole uses are by the Linux- specific applications to manipulate this privileged aspect of system state. This makes a much weaker case for backward compatibility than general nonprivileged standardized system calls.
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 04:30:11PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> I can't speak for anyone during the times of more ancient Linux history; >> however, developers' dissatisfaction with the development model has been >> aired numerous times in certain fora. It has not satisfactorily served >> developers or users. Users are locked into distro kernels for >> incompatible extensions, and developers are torn between multiple >> codebases.
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 01:45:51AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > At least on Debian, ftp.kernel.org kernels work fine.
This does not advance the argument.
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 04:30:11PM -0800, William Lee Irwin III wrote: >> This fragmentation of programmer effort is trivially recognizable as >> counterproductive. A single focal point for programmer effort is far >> superior for a development model. If the standard of stability is not >> passed then the code is not ready to be included in any kernel. Then >> the distinction is lost, and each of the fragmented codebases gets a >> third-class effort, and a spurious expenditure of effort is wasted on >> porting fixes and features across numerous different codebases. >>...
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 01:45:51AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > My impression is that currently 2.4 doesn't take that much time of > developers (except for Marcelo's), and that it's a quite usable and > stable kernel.
The ``stable'' moniker and distros being based on 2.4 are horrors beyond imagination and developers are pushed to in turn push inappropriate features on 2.4.x and maintain them out-of-tree for 2.4.x
-- wli - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |