Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"

Paolo Ciarrocchi
2004-10-26T12:12:59Z

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:09:59 +0200, Massimo Cetra <mcetra@navynet.it> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 26 October 2004 01:40, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't see the need for a development kernel, and it is
> > desirable
> > > > to be
> > > > able to run kernel.org kernels.
> > >
> > > Problem is, kernel.org 'release' kernels are quite buggy. For
> > > example 2.6.9 has a long list of bugs:
> > >
> > > Sure, the next release will (may?) fix these bugs, but it will
> > > definitely add a whole set of new ones.
> >
>
> > To my mind this just points out the need for a bug fix
> > branch. e.g. a
> > branch containing just bug/security fixes against the current
> > stable kernel. It might also be worth keeping the branch
> > active for the n-1 stable kernel too.
>
> To my mind, we only need to make clear that a stable kernel is a stable
> kernel.
> Not a kernel for experiments.

2.6 is not an experimental kernel. Not at all.

> To my mind, stock 2.6 kernels are nice for nerds trying patches and
> willing to recompile their kernel once a day. They are not suitable for
> servers. Several times on testing machines, switching from a 2.6 to the
> next one has caused bugs on PCI, acpi, networking and so on.

I don't understand what you mean here.
Did you report these problems to lkml ?
It's the firts time I heard about this kind of problems.

> The direction is lost. How many patchsets for vanilla kernel exist?

It was the same for 2.4. And that's not _BAD_, is _GOOD_.

> Someone has decided that linux must go on desktops as well and
> developing new magnificent features for desktop users is causing serious
> problems to the ones who use linux at work on production servers.

Who ?

> 2.4 tree is still the best solution for production.
> 2.6 tree is great for gentoo users who like gcc consuming all CPU
> (maxumum respect to gentoo but I prefer debian)

I'm sorry, but you sound like a troll...

--
Paolo