Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 18th May 2006 13:42 UTC, submitted by Marciano
Thread beginning with comment 125923
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: They were debunked
by dylansmrjones on Thu 18th May 2006 20:36
in reply to "RE[2]: They were debunked"
Well, the kernel-2.4 development model didn't work. That's why they changed the model for 2.6 and onwards.
That however does also seem to have issues (according to an article posted a few weeks ago on OSN), so one could claim that the 2.6 model doesn't work either.
. o O ( Actually, people could claim a lot, and often be right about half of it, and terribly wrong about the other half of their claims )






Member since:
2005-10-08
> And now, you do it yourself.
Not really. There are plenty of other examples as well. (The one that comes to mind right away is the "Vista delays prove that Microsoft's development model doesn't work" one... Um... Perl 6 anyone? Kernel 2.4 anyone?... you get my point.)