Re: kernel structures 2.0.29->2.0.30

Rogier Wolff (R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl)
Sat, 26 Apr 1997 10:23:52 +0200 (MET DST)

Nigel Metheringham wrote:
>
> } The general belief was that the stop-dead approach that was used with 1.2
> } wasn't too good, because 1.2.13 was starting to look very tired by the
> } time 2.0 was released.
>
> which makes it appear that we are being too ambitious in the changes made
> between major releases (by major I mean "stable" releases - ie 1.0, 1.2,
> 2.0).

Remember that a 2.0.x release has to work for "everybody" and that a
1.3.x version just has to "work for me".

If you really need a version that is more "advanced" than the last stable
release you might have to try a few experimental kernels.

The Linux effort is mostly spare time for lots of people. This has some
advantages and disadvantages over the commercial operating systems.

Pro: There are probably more programmer hours invested in Linux than
in any other OS.

Con: It has to remain "fun" and "do-able" for those that have to actually
do things.

Trust me, David, Linus and others are all reading this, and will be
more cautious next time when bugfixing a stable kerel.

Roger.