To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
> 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
No other project has this sort of nonsense. If KDE has a bug, then it is KDE's job to fix it, not Ubuntu's. It's great that distros try to fix some bugs, but this is more because they really need a polish product and don't have time to wait around for upstream to fix everything. That the kernel devs want to push everything off onto the distros is just laziness and arrogance. It's not a reasonable development model. For one, it's going to lead to splintering as each distro has it's own patchset and you are FORCED to use a distro's kernel since the vanilla kernels are unstable. This is not the optimal situation. If KDE or GNOME or Vi or any other project took this approach, people would be screaming about it. For some reason, when the kernel folks do stuff, everyone assumes that because it comes out of Linus's mouth, it's perfectly reasonable.
I, for one, am tired of the kernel dev's arrogance. It's producing a kernel that's getting less stable with time, even when the distros are maintaining it. There have been no real innovations for a while and the development process is a mess. I fear Linux will start to lose momentum in a few years, and it will be because of problems like this.




Member since:
2006-01-02
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.