Re: A users thoughts on the new dev. model

[Xiong Jiang <linuster@gmail.com>]

Forgive me if I missed any points earlier in the list since I am not a
frequent reader here.

As a dumb end user I DO need people to tell me which .x version in
2.6.x series is STABLE.

I understand it is important to get new features in as
soon as possible, but it is same important that we end users could
sleep well with the version running on our systems.

If every 2.6.x version is so solid then I wouldn't say anything, but I
am afraid it is not true. I think it still very important to
distinguish between _bug_fix_ release and _feature_devel_ release,
being it
2.6.x vs 2.7.x, or
2.6.x.1 vs 2.6.x+1, or
2.6.x vs 2.6.x+1-pre/-rc/-mm

I am optimistic that this issue could be settled down fairly easily by
such an open development process.

Sincerely,

A dumb end user

On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:39:37 -0400, David Ford
<david+challenge-response@blue-labs.org> wrote:
> This is malarkey, 99.9% pure FUD.  I personally use just about every
> kernel revision there is that is "newest", i.e. I use 2.4.x until 2.5
> appears then I switch to 2.5.x.  I may skip a few versions here and
> there due to frequent releases or a known brown bag release.  However by
> far and large even the development or "unstable" line of releases as
> some people have a bad habit of calling them, are far more reliable than
> Windows.
> 
> I use odd.x releases even on my servers.  Every once in a while there's
> a significant bug in code that I'll have an issue with that can't be
> worked around.  So I avoid that version.
> 
> In short, your statement is pure bullsh*t, because there is very little
> code put out that is actually a messy or unstable release.  Most bugs
> are quickly fixed, worked around, or avoided for that person because
> that feature isn't really such a necessity.  Linux (*nix) gives you a
> LOT of ways to get a particular task done but people have this penchant
> for finding a way that is broken and hyping/harping it up to make a big
> issue out of it instead of just reporting the bug and getting the job
> done in a different fashion.
> 
> "Oh my gawd it's a bug, let me piss on everyone's doorstep and make
> caustic remarks on LKML about horribly broken code.  Never mind you that
> I can probably get it done another way."
> 
> Give the developers a little credit, we all make mistakes; they happen
> to fix theirs pretty fast and they're downright honest about fessing up
> to them.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> >>From the LWM story i understood that linux will be like windows:
> >lots of "features" but no stability, except if you use a
> > distribution kernel. And that seriously made me think about
> > using another free *nix for a stable system.
> >
> 
> 
>