Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Aug 2005 17:50 UTC
Linux According to open-source insiders, the move to create separate kernel trees for technology testing and bug fixes, which are then incorporated into the stable kernel when ready, has been a huge success, pleasing both kernel developers and the vendors who distribute the open-source operating system. Torvalds: "I'm certainly pleased, and judging from the reactions we had at the Linux Kernel Summit in Ottawa a few weeks ago, most everybody else is too."
Permalink for comment 16130
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: And those who are unhappy...
by sbergman27 on Tue 9th Aug 2005 22:09 UTC in reply to "And those who are unhappy..."
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Use a vendor kernel. Use A Vendor Kernel! USE A VENDOR KERNEL!!! That has been the message on LKML for a long time now.

Choose whichever one you are comfortable with. From Gentoo, to Debian, to RHEL. These have gone through a formal testing process (to one degree or another) and are what the "unhappy" people are (or should be) looking for.

This is not 2001. Times change. Let the kernel developers do what they do best... develop. And let those with whom the QA responsibility should rest, and those who have the resources to do formal QA, the distros, do the formal QA (and for God's sake, send the fixes back upstream!).

That plan allocates the resources more efficiently than the old "we kernel developers are going to to do both development and QA on 24 different platforms all by ourselves and everything is going to come out perfect" model.

If you are one of those people who insists on running a vanilla kernel.org kernel, you need to redefine yourself as a tester. Now, I'm sure the 2.6.x.x series is reasonably safe. But like I say, times change, and Linux has changed. And that means that the users need to adapt, as well.

Reply Parent Score: 3