Re: USB driver issue

[Emanoil Kotsev <deloptes@yahoo.com>]

hello, again

I think what we are trying to say is that some of us are working on debugging kernels that are meant to run "forever"  and therefor it is a good thing to spent some time thinking about a kind of kernel release in the 2.6 series that can be considered as stable.

Besides what you say is correct but you can not provide argument for a stable software in the terms of what you are writing. because if you have a look at the changes done to the kernel code you'll admit that these are not a bug fixes but real changes that should lead the kernel to a new version (may be even not minor)

I don't argue I just agree with Anand that this is even worse than commercial software company practice.

I would agree with you if new minor versions does not impact working stuff, but this is NOT the case, ,so you are somehow WRONG!

sorry for that

regards


--- On Wed, 7/30/08, Daniel Stone <daniel.stone@nokia.com> wrote:

> From: Daniel Stone <daniel.stone@nokia.com>
> Subject: Re: USB driver issue
> To: "ext Gadiyar, Anand" <gadiyar@ti.com>
> Cc: "felipe.balbi@nokia.com" <felipe.balbi@nokia.com>, "ext Emanoil Kotsev" <deloptes@yahoo.com>, "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-omap-open-source@linux.omap.com" <linux-omap-open-source@linux.omap.com>, "SUBHRANIL CHOUDHURY" <subhra85@gmail.com>, "linux-usb@vger.kernel.org" <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>
> Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2008, 6:44 PM
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 09:53:43PM +0530, ext Gadiyar, Anand
> wrote:
> > Grr. Saying one needs to upgrade to the latest kernel
> before one can expect
> > support is a bit like certain proprietary OS vendors -
> and even they do a better
> > job than this.
> 
> If you want to support people running 2.6.22, good for you.
>  You seem to
> be happy with a codebase that doesn't change as much,
> so I'm sure you'll
> have fun supporting it.
> 
> I'm getting the feeling that we need a new Godwin's
> law: as a thread
> involving a complaint about open source grows longer, the
> probability of
> a comparison involving Microsoft approaches one.
> 
> So yes, some people don't want to support old code on
> their own time.
> So what? Who are you to tell them that they can't do
> this? What was the
> point of the Microsoft comparison, except to reinforce
> stereotypes that
> free software developers are a bunch of freaks with
> unhealthy obsessions
> on Microsoft and LOL BILL GATES IS THE SUCK?
> 
> (Bearing in mind that one of the main tenets of open source
> development
>  is 'release early and release often', you could
> say that having
>  everyone use very old code until you one day drop a huge
> chunk of
>  rewritten new code on them is also OMG MICROSOFT.  But
> that'd be
>  equally stupid.)