Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel

[Xose Vazquez Perez <xose.vazquez@gmail.com>]

Jeff V. Merkey wrote:

> These folks have nothing new to innovate here. The memory manager and VM 
> gets revamped every other release. Exports get broken, binary only 
> module compatibility busted every rev of the kernel. I spend weeks on 
> each kernel fixing the breakage. These people don't get it, don't care, 
> and to be honest, you are wasting your time here trying to convince 
> them. It's never stable because they don't want it to be. This is how 
> they maintain control
> of this code. I have apps written for Windows in 1990 and 1998 that 
> still run on Windows XP today. Linux has no such concept of
> backwards compatiblity. Every company who has embraced it outside of 
> hardware based solutions is dying or has died. IBM is secretly
> forking it as we speak and using it to get out of paying for Unix licenses.
> As annoying as it is, accept it and live with it. These people have no 
> sense of loyalty to you or your customers. They don't even care about 
> each other.

Linux is _only_ a kernel, not a complete OS. And in a very big development
process [1].

If you want a complete OS get Fedora, openSUSE, Debian, etc. And if you need
longer life time, support, certifications get SLES or RHEL.


Btw, latest Coverity reports [2] shows things are getting better and the
main root of bugs are _drivers_ (53%), and far away filesystems(18%) and
inside net(15%).


[1] http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/x.jpg
[2] http://www.coverity.com/forms/register.php?continue[]=open_source
-- 
Romanes eunt domus