> How, exactly, is that attitude going to help the general acceptance of
> Linux as an operating system to be taken seriously? Sure, the people
> reading this group, by and large, are the people you speak of. But
> people who aren't hackers, and who are interested in Linux as an
> operating system, don't care why there isn't a stable kernel -- they
> just care that there isn't. We've seen how easy it is to be blown off
> by the major trade publications just because they can't RTFM. If we
> don't have a stable kernel, we don't have a prayer.
Hmmph, this is just about enough of this Usenet flavor whining..
Let me quote what I said to Alan (privately) a bit ago:
On Sun, 13 Jul 1997, Alan Cox wrote:
> You mean it appears that a critical mass of users don't appear to be
> wishing to contribute to the code. A lot of the 2.0.3x stuff has been
> very difficult to resolve, and 2.0.31 has to be very stable. 2.0.30
should
> IMHO have never occured, it was forced on people by the perpetual
whining
> of some folks for 2.1.x features in 2.0.x.
*Cheer* Alan! Seriously, people need to remember what Linux really
is and how it came about. If you _pay_ for an operating system then
you get to whine. If not, then your only recourse is to help out.
---If something is broken then fix it. If you can't then shut up and use what has been provided for you out of the wisdom of the GPL. Nobody owes anyone anything in the free software arena (particularly "end users") and I am just wondering how we go about getting Linus a Nobel prize. (The economics of this planet dictate that honest people will use Linux.)
Respectfully,
Eric Hoeltzel