Re: A users thoughts on the new dev. model

[David Ford]

This is malarkey, 99.9% pure FUD.  I personally use just about every 
kernel revision there is that is "newest", i.e. I use 2.4.x until 2.5 
appears then I switch to 2.5.x.  I may skip a few versions here and 
there due to frequent releases or a known brown bag release.  However by 
far and large even the development or "unstable" line of releases as 
some people have a bad habit of calling them, are far more reliable than 
Windows.

I use odd.x releases even on my servers.  Every once in a while there's 
a significant bug in code that I'll have an issue with that can't be 
worked around.  So I avoid that version.

In short, your statement is pure bullsh*t, because there is very little 
code put out that is actually a messy or unstable release.  Most bugs 
are quickly fixed, worked around, or avoided for that person because 
that feature isn't really such a necessity.  Linux (*nix) gives you a 
LOT of ways to get a particular task done but people have this penchant 
for finding a way that is broken and hyping/harping it up to make a big 
issue out of it instead of just reporting the bug and getting the job 
done in a different fashion.

"Oh my gawd it's a bug, let me piss on everyone's doorstep and make 
caustic remarks on LKML about horribly broken code.  Never mind you that 
I can probably get it done another way."

Give the developers a little credit, we all make mistakes; they happen 
to fix theirs pretty fast and they're downright honest about fessing up 
to them.

David

> > From the LWM story i understood that linux will be like windows:
> lots of "features" but no stability, except if you use a
> distribution kernel. And that seriously made me think about
> using another free *nix for a stable system.  
begin:vcard
fn:David Ford
n:Ford;David
email;internet:david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
title:Industrial Geek
tel;home:Ask please
tel;cell:(203) 650-3611
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
version:2.1
end:vcard