To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I am getting more and more concerned with the development model of the Linux kernel and the arrogance and attitude of the developers. You can't trust Linux to be the rock-solid kernel it used to be. You have to hope and pray...and hope that they didn't add any new regressions or bugs in each release. Since there's no longer any distinction between stable and unstable, you really never know what you're going to get.
> Since there's no longer any distinction between stable and unstable,
> you really never know what you're going to get.
Here's a hint for you: It's the *KERNEL*. It is not meant to be a finished product. You can start worrying about kernel development when you have your own distro.
Use your vendor provided kernel.
It's gone through more testing. Expecting the final QA to be done by the kernel devs is a layering violation.
Final QA is a responsibility that rests squarely on the vendors' shoulders. The developers excel at developing. Let them each do their jobs.
If the distributor does not fulfill their responsibility, then find another.
The landscape has changed, and I perceive that there are many who are unwilling to adapt to this new world in which the kernel developers are not responsible for final QA.
Get a kernel off the street, and the risk is entirely yours.
This does not mean that the distributors are not also responsible for feeding their patches back to LKML. And it does not absolve the kernel devs from the responsibility of taking those patches seriously.
Welcome to the year 2.6.x. :-)
Edited 2007-04-23 23:13





Member since:
2006-05-19
"Break me tender, breake me more..."
OMG..What a wonderful slogan for Linux!