Maybe you're right, but I doubt it.
> > limited purposes. I use it for a workstation and I know of others as well.
> > Some installations for limited server use I know.
>
> That is the intent of this development model.
>
> > But mostly the people who run production servers or fully featured
> > networking stuff use 2.0.X. On the Campus I run I use 2.0.X exclusively.
> > I patch 2.0.X with certain 2.1.X features if I need to have them.
>
> There are "servers" and "workstations" -- and there are
> "users" and "power users"
>
> "servers" *should* run stable versions (unless they are
> "lab servers" for kernel developers).
>
> "workstations" for normal users *should* also run stable versions
> (unless you are the BOFH -- and you don't like them).
>
> "workstations" for "power users" *might* run the beta
> kernels *if* they're willing to assume that risk model for their
> work.
I guess I've always been lucky with 1.1.x, 1.3.x and 2.1.x kernels. To
be sure, I don't upgrade frequently. Just now I have two 2.0.29s at work,
servers, and a 2.1.54 at home. But I would see it as absolutely feasible
to use the alpha/beta series as workstations in the business environment.
The only issue is that no-one is giving you any assurances, you have
to rely on your own judgement.
My own little trick is to pick kernels that were out for a relatively
long time before their successors appeared. I calculate that they
probably are not disastrously bad. If one is a hassle I'd quickly
upgrade to a later one.
> > Have tried to run a 2.1.X kernel during the burn-in phase of a new server
> > but quickly had to switch back to 2.0.X due to problems with networking.
>
> That's fine. I wish everyone would grab the latest beta for
> a day or two of "shakedown" testing when configuring a new
> machine.
>
> There are *lots* more Linux users now then there
> were three years ago -- and many of them are purely
>...
> even guess at any other numbers. However, my intuition is
> that a tiny percentage of the total current users is likely
> to be a much larger number of tester than we had in total
> user base five years ago.
I _think_ you're right. But _many_ people attach huge importance to
the latest CDROM release of their favorite distribution vendor.
That makes a lot of sense from the pure user standpoint, but they
are obviously not going to test anything.
>...
>
> > I think the release time between stable kernels should be reduced
> > significantly. Release a stable kernel each 6 months at least and develop
> > a testing program. Keep the user base in touch with kernel development
> > otherwise we will loose momentum and users will not test the development
> > kernel anymore.
>
> Hmm. I personally like the current model. "Stable" means
Agreed. It would slow down development. The balance is pretty good
as it is.
The only problem was that 2.0.x was supposedly stable but turned into
an alpha because people couldn't resist chucking in 2.1 features.
It's a matter of being decisive, and not trying to have both the assurance
offered by the versioning of a stable series, and the latest goodies.
As I said before, you can run the alpha/beta kernels in production,
just spare the developers conflicting and unsupportable demands.
>...
> > Recommendation:
> >
> > For 2.2: Freeze, fix the bugs and get things out ASAP before trying any
> > new ideas that will break things again. It will be difficult to get 2.2.X
> > accepted since most people by this time are mostly satisfied with 2.0.X
> > kernels and have developed patches for 2.0.X if they need more
> > functionality.
That is perverse.
> I know people who still run 0.99p15 or 1.09, or 1.2.13.
> The people who adopted Linux a long time ago tend to be
> the "daring" early adopter types. The huge surge in users
> that we've had since 2.x shipped are *not* pre-selected for
> this characteristic. So we should face the simple fact that
> 2.0.x will be around for a long time to come.
>
> I don't see anything wrong with that.
>
> As for "feature freeze": I'd like to see that happen for
> 2.1.90 Of course I don't have *any* say in that. I'm not
Linus announced a freeze about 2.1.72.
> a contributor -- I'm a lurker who butts in with my opinion.
Oh. Well as another lurker I'm sorry I responded, but I've done it
now, so off it goes.
--Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu