From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261986AbVAJAax (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jan 2005 19:30:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262014AbVAJAax (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jan 2005 19:30:53 -0500 Received: from rwcrmhc12.comcast.net ([216.148.227.85]:60607 "EHLO rwcrmhc12.comcast.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261986AbVAJAan (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 Jan 2005 19:30:43 -0500 Message-ID: <41E1CCB7.4030302@comcast.net> Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:30:47 -0500 From: John Richard Moser User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041211) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alan Cox CC: znmeb@cesmail.net, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: starting with 2.7 References: <1697129508.20050102210332@dns.toxicfilms.tv> <41DD9968.7070004@comcast.net> <1105045853.17176.273.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1105115671.12371.38.camel@DreamGate> <41DEC5F1.9070205@comcast.net> <1105237910.11255.92.camel@DreamGate> <41E0A032.5050106@comcast.net> <1105278618.12054.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1105278618.12054.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alan Cox wrote: |>I'm claiming that an IT infrastructure that has to support 2.6 as-is |>will be wildly more complex and more expensive than one supporting a |>truly stable one with the same efficiency. It keeps changing. New |>features must be added that aren't amply tested (and due to the 2.6 |>development structure, ample testing before mainline integration is much |>more difficult). | | | Large IT businesses already deployed 2.6 (SuSE) and will do so more soon | (Red Hat). These vendors are guaranteeing long term stable maintenance | of those versions. | | |>Ask Linus to start making 3rd party binary module support a reality then. | | | Binary module support is pretty irrelevant. Good management of out of | tree source code recompiling is a much more useful and relevant topic. | 2.6 has caused an inadvertent problem there because with 2.4 it was | *much* easier to grab 2.4.x and drop in a 2.4.y version of a driver. | | And what 3rd party hardware vendor wants to waste their resources by repeting smaller versions of the one-time cost of driver writing over and over to accomodate linux, when they can't even accomodate all versions due to special patches some people have? So far there's been a rediculous but visible trend of hardware vendors to hold their source closed. Why not just chase the easier targets like Windows and MacOS? I want Linux to be a popular OS. Linus I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't care, because Linux isn't a business (though some businesses are for all intents and purposes basically Linux), so this is pretty much a moot point to be arguing. Anything having to do with the marketability of Linux is pretty much not worth arguing; genuine quality in the open source community tends to be, though only if it encompasses only contributions from the open source community. I guess this isn't worth bothering to argue anymore. - -- All content of all messages exchanged herein are left in the Public Domain, unless otherwise explicitly stated. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFB4cy2hDd4aOud5P8RAuJmAKCJ29DIvWuqPLhRvmn+IRdvroNcRgCfU1qD rcuho2zJTLnH9CMt7urYfyM= =eCh6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----