[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: My thoughts on the "new development model"
William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> We aren't just stabilizing 2.6. We're moving it forward. Part of moving
> forward is preventing backportmania depravity. Backporting is the root
> of all evil.

Damn! And I thought it was closed source software...

Let me just put forward my single criterion for stable vs. not, and that
is that if I am running a stable kernel and upgrade to a new version to
gain a feature or security fix my existing programs don't break. That
means to me that if Reiser4 goes in, Reiser3 doesn't exit. If something
more please to theoretical cryptographers than cryptoloop comes out,
cryptoloop doesn't go away. Etc, these are just examples.

It doesn't bother me (and I believe most users of releases)
when a new features comes in, until it breaks something even though I
don't use the new feature. It's when there is an incompatible change,
like the rewrite of modules, that I think a development kernel is needed.

I don't see the need for a development kernel, and it is desirable to be
able to run kernels. I would like to hope that other people
agree that stable need not mean static, as long as changes don't
deliberately break existing apps.

I note that BSD has another serious fork and that people are actually
moving to Linux after installing SP2 and finding it disfunctional with
non-MS software. Nice to see people looking at Linux as the stable
choice. I would like to hope that continues.

-bill davidsen (
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.118 / U:7.776 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site