From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262106AbTKDXuD (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:50:03 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262425AbTKDXuD (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:50:03 -0500 Received: from mail3.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.7]:9864 "HELO heather-ng.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262106AbTKDXt7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Nov 2003 18:49:59 -0500 X-Sender-Authentication: net64 Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 00:49:56 +0100 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: Mike Fedyk Cc: reiser@namesys.com, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Debian Kernels was: 2.6.0test9 Reiserfs boot time "buffer layer error at fs/buffer.c:431" Message-Id: <20031105004956.19dbd3fb.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20031104210310.GA1068@matchmail.com> References: <20031029141931.6c4ebdb5.akpm@osdl.org> <20031101233354.1f566c80.akpm@osdl.org> <20031102092723.GA4964@gondor.apana.org.au> <20031102014011.09001c81.akpm@osdl.org> <20031104210310.GA1068@matchmail.com> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:03:10 -0800 Mike Fedyk wrote: > There was a bug in one of the released Debian kernels, and do you think this > hasn't happened with Redhat, SuSe, or Mandrake? Just because Debian is > completely OSS and maintained mostly by unpaid volunteers, that shouldn't > keep them from having a seperate tree like everyone else. Just to avoid a false impression: I am in no way against debian project nor do I say there is anything specifically bad about it. I am generally disliking distros' ideas of having _own_ kernels. Commercial companies like SuSE or Red Hat may find arguments for that which are commercially backed, debian on the other hand can hardly argue commercially. From the community point of view it is just nonsense. It means more work and less useable feedback. Bugs is distro kernels are (always) the sole fault of their respective maintainers because they actively decided _not_ to follow the mainstream and made bogus patches. Why waste the appreciated work of (unpaid) debian volunteers in this area? There are tons of other work left with far more relevance for users than bleeding edge kernel patches... And if you really insist to pick up the tough pieces around kernel then find out why 2.4.20 is the last stable netfilter implementation... for sure far more relevant than loadable module ide code in 2.6.0-testX. Regards, Stephan