From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265178AbTLCU1O (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:27:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265182AbTLCU1O (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:27:14 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]:38563 "EHLO main.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265178AbTLCU06 (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Dec 2003 15:26:58 -0500 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Jan Rychter Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 future Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 13:26:56 -0800 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Spammers-Please: blackholeme@rychter.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.1003 (Gnus v5.10.3) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:mJCwNJLIW9lEn0kMyVSgUa8jsiA= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-=-= >>>>> "Marcelo" == Marcelo Tosatti : Marcelo> The intention of this email is to clarify my position on 2.4.x Marcelo> future. Marcelo> 2.6 is becoming more stable each day, and we will hopefully Marcelo> see a 2.6.0 release during this month or January. Marcelo> Having that mentioned, I pretend to: [...] Marcelo> - From 2.4.25 on, fix only critical/security problems. I find your statements on 2.6.0 being stable enough for users rather alarming. I'll use this occasion to write about my gripes with Linux development, with hopes that perhaps this will help some developers understand people's needs better. On my notebook, I have spent the last two years going through regular painful kernel patching and upgrades. I have never had a fully working system during that time. At various times, various parts failed to work correctly: ACPI, software suspend, USB, sound. Also, the kernel is incomplete and I have had to patch each new release or compile additional drivers for (at least): ACPI, cpufreq, cryptoapi + loop driver fix (for reasonable IV calculation), orinoco wireless card, spectrum24 wireless card, ALSA sound modules and software suspend. I've seen ABI's change from under me (the tun/tap interface being changed around 2.4.9 AFAIR). I've seen bugs being ignored [1]. I've seen 2.4 kernels being plain unusable on my hardware (a non-working ACPI implementation means the hardware will overheat). Overall, the state of affairs has been rather sad. It is improving now, with ACPI and software suspend becoming mature. Some of the USB bugs were fixed around 2.4.21/22 (I think). I finally have a reasonably stable system to work on [2]. I am terrified of the following scenario, which is extremely probable to happen soon: 1) 2.4 is being moved into "pure maintenance" mode and people are being encouraged to move to 2.6. 2) While people slowly start using 2.6, Linus starts 2.7 and all kernel developers move on to the really cool and fashionable things [3]. 3) 2.6 bug reports receive little attention, as it's much cooler to work on new features than fix bugs. Bugs are not fashionable. 4) In the meantime, third-party vendors are confused and do not support any kernel properly [4]. IMHO, Linus should try to enforce a *long* 2.6 testing period after the "real" 2.6 kernel is out. Starting a new series immediately is a recipe for disaster, as with the 2.4 kernels. Also, please remember, that for some people the move to 2.6 is not that easy. My personal checklist of things that have to work (and some still do not, for various reasons) for me to migrate: -- support for my hardware (of course), -- stable software suspend, -- crypto support that can mount my filesystem, -- VMware kernel modules, -- ATI drivers [5]. What are my suggestions? Two main points, I guess: 1) Please don't stop working (and that does include pulling in new stuff) on 2.4, as many people still have to use it. 2) Please don't start developing 2.7 too soon. Go for at least 6 months of bug-fixing. During that time, patches with new features will accumulate anyway, so it isn't lost time. But it will at least prevent people from saying "well, I use 2.7.45 and it works for me". I hope this posting will help some of you understand how some users feel. I think most of those people who run into these kinds of problems are not very well represented on this list. I know of at least several people who have tried installing Linux on a laptop and failed [6]. You'll never hear from those people here. --J. == [1] Yes, I think a "please retest with 2.5.69" response is equivalent to ignoring a bug report. I was also rather disappointed by people saying they don't care about bug reports from people who are not willing to resend them regularly. 2.4 does not have a bug-tracking system, which means many bug reports get lost or ignored. [2] On hardware that's two years old. [3] I really, really couldn't care less for a new scheduler that makes my machine 2% faster overall. I will trade performance for correctness at any time. I am willing to think about performance when my machine works without freeezing or crashing. [4] Vendors such as VMware, ATI or NVidia. [5] Please don't tell me to buy an open-source supported 3D card. I've seen such answers before and they are ridiculous. There is no such card on the market if you want anything like reasonable performance. [6] Failed for good reasons, not because of stupid errors, but because of the limitations of Linux. --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQA/zlUgLth4/7/QhDoRAm1SAJ0cSH6NnvLPEXK2NRKyN3MOQhqmMgCg5+fW vGxj8GBJqQgTSBxnWs7MrMc= =p01M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--