Re: starting with 2.7

[Felipe Alfaro Solana]

On 3 Jan 2005, at 16:37, William Lee Irwin III wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 10:20:40AM -0500, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > 2.2 before 2.2.20 also had this kind of problem, as did
> > > the 2.4 kernel before 2.4.20 or thereabouts.
> > > I'm pretty sure 2.6 is actually doing better than the
> > > early 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 kernels...
>
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 04:29:53PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > My personal impression was that even the 2.6.0-test kernels were much
> > better than the 2.4.0-test kernels.
> > But 2.6.20 will most likely still have the stability of the early
> > 2.6 kernels instead of a greatly increased stability as observed in
> > 2.2.20 and 2.4.20 .
>
> This is speculation; there is no reason not to expect the process to
> converge to as great of stability or greater stability than the
> 2.4-style process. I specuate that it will in fact do precisely that.

I would like to comment in that the issue is not exclusively targeted 
to stability, but the ability to keep up with kernel development. For 
example, it was pretty common for older versions of VMWare and NVidia 
driver to break up whenever a new kernel version was released.

I think it's a PITA for developers to rework some of the closed-source 
code to adopt the new changes in the Linux kernel.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/