> On Fri, 26 Jul 1996, Kernel Mailing List wrote (among other things):
> > So can we get this straight, are kernels with even second clause revision
> > numbers going to be stable or what, we should not go back to those days of
> > kernel releases every day for a supposedly stable kernel!
> I agree, and IMHO it stands for credibility. You never hear any
> Micro-something Loose-those user answered by the tech support: Get the
> next version, it's MORE stable. This is why many ISPs still stick to
> good-old 1.2.13. And since we all agree that Linux should be an
> alternative to the Micro-something environments, I personally would like to
> see the thing getting systematic and stable.
Um, the reason you don't hear that is because
(1) commercial vendors rarely like to admit their releases are unstable, and
(2) commercial vendors rarely release their production releases on the net
with the expectation that, if a release proves not-quite-adequate, they
will be able to make another general release within a day (or even an
hour), again over the net, and correct the problem.
Followups to email@example.com ....
echo 'subscribe linux-offtopic' | mail firstname.lastname@example.org