So you use the 2.0 version until a 2.2 version stabilizes. The problem
really is that the Linux unreliable development kernel is so good that
people actually want to run production systems on it, and then complain when
it does not stay stable.
> Besides, binaries are still the best way to get up and running as fast as
> possible. Waiting to bring up a replacement server because it's still
Really? And what about waiting until the binary only patches get shipped by
the vendor. For those of use with experience on binary only systems, this
complaint is completely mysterious.
Here's my suggestion. If you want to work with the development kernel
in production mode with binary sources,
pay for it. That is, get someone or some organization to agree to
maintain a binary compatible version of the system and to provide you
with updates. There are many people who will do this.
The argument: "we are using the open source kernel developed by other
peoples work to make money and therefore the developers that we don't
pay need to follow our requirements", is not a persuasive one.
> library or (b) a good binary compatibility layer that allows older kernel
> modules to still work would help alleviate this. Examples could be either
> NetBSD or MacOS/PPC's emulation of 680x0 code (heck, I was sincerely
> impressed that I could run old MacOS extensions on the PowerPC). Of course,
Good idea. If nobody wants to volunteer, and you need it for business the
free market is waiting for you.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/