lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Linux-2.1.125 ... pre-2.2 imminent
Date
The following messages were unearthed from /.


-----------------------


Title: Now that 2.2.x is on the horizon ....
By Taco Cowboy on Friday October 09, @06:13PM


Can someone _please_ figure out a way to
automating the patch-feature submit system
to speed up the progress of Linux?

It took more than 2 years for Linux to get
from 2.1.1 to 2.2.0, and the world can't wait
that long for linux to get to 2.3.1 to 2.4.

NT 5.0 is coming out pretty soon (it is in beta
2 now), and whatever we do, we do have to
understand that NT 5.0 is a threat to Linux.

The development cycle for Linux _has_ to be
accelerated. There are several key targets for 2.3
and let us not waste too much time on the
patch/feature submit/re-submit snafu cycles, and
rather concentrate on development.

Linux has come too far for all of us. If it's being
bogged down by artificial bottleneck, the bottleneck
must be removed. We can't afford to take our own
sweet time in the development cycle any longer. We
are in competition.

I welcome all comment and suggestion on how to speed
up the development cycle. You can comment it on the
linux-kernel mailing list at linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu

Taco Cowboy


-----------------------


Title: We _are_ in a race, believe it or not.
By Taco Cowboy on Friday October 09, @10:24PM


True, Linux is not a commercial product, so it has
no artificial deadline. True, Linux has proven itself
times and times again, against all odds.

But we must _never_ delude ourselves that Linux is
_above 'em all_, and we can always take our own sweet
time to incubate the next Linux hatching.

We _are_ in competition with Solaris, NT 5.0, BeOS and
others, whether we like it or not. Linux is in a stage
now that it is starting to get the attention from the
commercial world (users), that we must _not_ give up
this opportunity to prove ourselves to them that Linux
_is_ a viable alternative.

What makes NT ticks today is the commercial world.
Without the commercial enterprises sold into the
NT-is-the-only-thing lie, MicroSoft won't have a
firmhold on anything, for MS being the OS maker,
also makes applix, and MS applix almost always have
secret hooks that makes them run much smoother on
their own OS.

Without the commercial world, Unices would have bitten
the dust. You think the colleges and universities in
the world can support the various flavors of Unices
from so many vendors? Unlike Linux (and FreeBSD), which
is community based, commercial Unices do cost money, and
commercial world's big irons are the reasons Unices
still alive today.

IOW, the commercial world is _the_ most important market
segment which determine the life and death of any
particular OS, and for Linux to continue to thrive
(not only survive, but to _thrive_) Linux does need the
support from the commercial world.

We have finally opened the window to the commercial
world, and they are starting to look into Linux with
much more enthusiasm than ever before, _but_ we have to
understand that this window of opportunity will not
last forever --- and according to my personal observation,
the window of opportunity for Linux to the world at large
stands for 2 to 4 years, and within this timeframe, we
better prove to the world that Linux is indeed a _much_
superior product, and if we fail to do that, Linux will
never have a second chance.

We do have to start figuring out a better system for
automating the patch/feature submit cycle, and with
that matter settle, I can safely say that the progress
of Linux will be greatly improved.

It took more than two years for Linux to get from 2.1.1
to 2.2.0, and I think we can do better than that for
2.3 ---> 2.4 series.

If we can half the development cycle (as Linus Torvalds
has once said), it would be superb, and if we can't, at
least we have to set a time budget of not more than
18 months for a complete 2.3.1 to 2.4.0 dev cycle.

There are plenty of things to be done for Linux. Linux
isn't yet scalable, and Linux needs some industry-strength
audit, along with some nicer features such as
fault-tolerance and self-healing capacities.

Not all would be achived under the 2.3 series of course,
that's why I think it would be wise for us to have a
maximum development cycle of 18 months for 2.3, so a
further 2.5 (3.x?) cycle may begin and take up whatever
features that are still lacking and make Linux a true
clean and robust OS as it should be.

And we better do it better and faster than NT and other
OS if we are to win the race.

Taco Cowboy


-----------------------


Respectfully,
Pete
teamwork@freemail.c3.hu

-
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 13:44    [W:0.139 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site