Re: 2.0.31 : please!

Steven L Baur (
15 Jul 1997 02:44:11 -0700

David S Miller <> writes:

> From: Michael Harnois <>
> Date: 14 Jul 1997 01:14:47 -0500

> If we don't have a stable kernel, we don't have a prayer.

Before I respond, let me point out that two of my machines booted
shortly after upgrading them to 2.0.30 (~90 days uptime) were only
rebooted when they had to be unplugged to move physical location.
During the time they were up, they were doing their jobs quite nicely,
Thank You. 2.0.30 *is quite* stable on some configurations.

> Yes, indeed, so all of us should go screw themselves.
> Thanks a lot.

I don't think that is what he meant. I've always taken Michael's
wording with a grain of salt when he has been communicating back
problems with beta XEmacsen. He's really on our side, I believe.

> I think someone else should work on furthering the eventual 2.0.31
> release. I don't have the stomache for it anymore. Any volunteers?

> I'll dump whatever the latest is that I have, but you'll have to clean
> it up a bit, and also Eric Schenk is gone for a while so there'll be
> nobody to beat up the remaining networking problems past the fixes in
> my tree right now.

I beg you to please reconsider. I (and many others) appreciate your
efforts immensely. It is (in part) due to your efforts that I have been
able to contribute my own time in support of the GPL'ed XEmacs project.
I use Linux 2.0.30; I rely on it every day. You are important and there
are plenty of us who know it.

> Does anyone have any clue what makes any of us hack on this thing at
> all?

Yes. It is a wondrous thing that the Linux 2.0 kernel has become. I
was on sabbatical between '92 and '95 and was totally blown away upon
encountering Linux for the first time in '95. I still am. You, Linus
and others in the Linux community have created something unique in all
human history. I think that's important.

Please hang in there?

- Steve Baur, XEmacs Maintainer