This is pure nonsense. "Unconscionable" is if I kill your granny in
cold blood, not if I fix some bugs in your raid code. You're
perfectly capable of back-porting the raid patches if you like, or not
upgrading your kernel. A lot of big companies where I've worked
settle on a single revision of Solaris et al and keep it the same for
years. Why should linux be any different?
> Now that companies are beginning to run Linux on production systems, the
> carefree attitude toward "stable" kernels has to change. I'd love to be
> able to recommend Linux to my clients on Wall Street, but there have to be
> stable kernels first. That means nothing changes unless it's a bug fix.
Show me an OS that _only_ releases patches that don't require tool
upgrades. Clue: don't include WIN NT, Solaris, AIX, O/S 2, and
probably quite a few others that I mentioned. OSs that don't release
upgrades can't be included in this list, mind.
Secondly, I have personal knowlege of several large investment and
retail banks in the US and Switzerland that are already officially
using linux, so your clients on Wall St are possibly hipper than you
Thirdly, your large commercial clients will probably be running
redhat, which ships with the new raid tools/patches as standard. This
is a pretty ridiculous situation.
> Everything else (updated drivers, new features, code cleanups) waits for
> the next major release. Otherwise, there is little difference between odd
> and even numbered kernels.
More nonsense. Updated drivers and code cleanups go into even kernels
all the time.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/