Linked by Mystilleef on Mon 29th Sep 2003 06:30 UTC
Linux will become ubiquitous in the year 3000. Okay, that was a horrible joke. Linux is just a kernel, the engine that runs an operating system. By itself, it is essentially useless. Kernels shouldn't be discussed or noticed by normal users. And as such when providing these users with reviews, previews and "professional" opinions, computer consultants, computer reviewers and computer journalists should not spew headlines like "Linux is not ready for prime time", "Linux on the desktop by XXX", "Linux to takeover Windows", "Linux is not ready for desktop" and so on.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
If you are talking about drivers, then that is not too big an issue [...]
It is a big issue if everytime someone has to install a new kernel for a security update, they also need to recompile and/or reinstall their hardware drivers. It either means that a) all drivers have to be available in source form or b) any new kernel release must also be accompanied by new driver releases. Neither of these alternatives is especially attractive to hardware vendors.
It also applies to low level software like VMWare. I imagine that kernel-level HTTP server needs recompiling when the kernel version changes, as well.
I seem to recall Linus and other kernel developers saying on several occasions not to rely on kernel interfaces remaining stable between releases - including ones in the "stable" development tree. This is not the sign of a mature and stable platform ready for "prime time".
I personally think people should not have to upgrade their kernels all the time anyway.
Ah, when there's security issues fixed that require kernel patches, "people" don't really have much choice. This is the situation I am thinking of, not the compulsive download-compile-install activity of the average linux geek. People in that latter category have the expertise and/or the spare time to deal with problems. Other users do not.
Unless you run a webserver or some internet thing, there is absolutely no issue with kernels.
There's even *less* incentive to mess around with different kernel versions on production servers than there is on end-user desktops. Changes on such systems should be few and far between.
Whilst I am sure there are lots of people out there running their production servers on Gentoo or Debian boxes who have their systems setup to [semi-]automatically install updates whenever they are available - and getting away with it - this is *not* good practice.
Similarly, there are lots of people out there running production FreeBSD boxes on -STABLE. Again, not good practice, but probably somewhat less risky that doing the equivalent with Linux.
Heck I can use ten different kernels with the same Linux install.
And how many closed-source drivers do you use ? How much closed-source software that might need to interact at the low levels of the system ?