lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Jun]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0
Date
Thanks Roland,

On Tuesday 26 June 2007 21:03, Roland Kuhn wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2007, at 16:37, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:
> > Whatever "stable" means.
>
> What you mean by "stable" pretty much excludes any
> serious development, without which the Linux kernel would
> very soon be obsolete. If you want a stable system, then
> don't change it.

This is a problem. Do you remember that kernel vulnerability
in 2.4 that made the Debian servers be attacked ? And
mplayerhq.hu too if I remember right ? So what are we
supposed to do with a perfect and optimised system, running
smoothly, with an older kernel where some nasty bug is
discovered ?

In MacOS X, you click "System Update" and you're done.

In Linux, I expect "download the newest stable kernel,
configure, compile, install, reboot".

If I have to rely on the distribution to help me it spoils
the whole benefit of open source. I don't trust Novell or
RedHat or Google more than Microsoft or Apple. You "kernel
developpers" are the keepers of the flame.

> If you update to a kernel which is 2.5
> years newer, you simply cannot have stability, because
> that would mean stagnation, aka "death".

PostScript is a very old language yet we all still use it
every day. HTML is a very old "thing" and we use it
every-day, and it's still compatible with newer and older
stuff.

I'm a system engineer, and a "stable" system is one where
the interfaces are stable. Individual components can
change, and do change, but if you change fundamental
interfaces it is not the same system. Of course I
understand that "sometimes" fundamental things have to
change, but here "sometimes" is the keyword. If its
"anytime" it simply is no stable system. And yes, designing
and maintaining interfaces is a very difficult job.

I don't remember how it was during 2.4 and before, but I
find it very suspicious that SuSE and RedHat only provide
2.6.10 and 2.6.9 for their OS. It looks as if THEY didn't
trust 2.6.x to be a replacement to 2.6.y

And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of
stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable
kernel to be a drop-in replacement for an older stable
kernel (from the same series), while development kernels
need time to stabilise with the new whizz-bang-pfouit stuff
that you all so nicely add.

Are the good ol' days lost in nostalgia ?

bye

Zoltán




--

________________________

Zoltan
________________________


-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-06-27 11:17    [W:0.076 / U:0.244 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site