On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:18:02 -0600 (CST)
> From: Peter Samuelson <peter@cadcamlab.org>
> To: Marco Colombo <marco@esi.it>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu
> Subject: Re: Standard Development Integration
[...]
[me]
> > And there are more companies commercially supporting Linux today than
> > there were a couple of year ago (at 2.0 time). THEY won't stop
> > supporting a certain feature only bacause there's a new kernel to
> > play with, i think...
>
[Peter]
> Shoot, companies supporting Linux can take care of themselves. They
> can move from supporting 2.2.x to supporting 2.4.x whenever they
> please. The invisible hand[1] will keep them honest and diligent.
>
> [1] Adam Smith's metaphor for the free market.
Wrong attitude. They exist, and we should think of how to take advantage
of their efforts. If you ask them to stop development, they won't stop,
they'll just go on in another direction, the wrong one.
Of course I agree Linus should NOT go in the wrong direction
just to support them...
You should not ask what you can do from them, but what they can do
for you B-)
[a bit off-topic]
BTW, you suggested that it's done this way to force people into the
bug-fixing step, instead of letting them develope new stuff before
they're finished with the old one. If you give them the freedom
of doing that they want (no penalty), the same "invisible hand" will
keep them from making the mistake (al least twice). No kernel
developer likes to be known for producing buggy code... And even if
some developer abandons a piece of code of its own, somebody who's
interested in *using* it will pick it up and start maintaing it.
As the basic axiom is "if you really want it, code it!", what's wrong
with "here's the alpha version: if you want it stable, debug it!"?
What's the whole purpose of releasing under GPL if not for letting
people freely improve each-other code?
> > It's that 'making it somewhat more inconvenient to develop new stuff'
> > that I'm pointing out! I agree it was better to do that at 2.0 times,
> > but I'm wondering if that makes us pay today more that it gives!
>
> Well, think in terms of whose ends it serves. In other words look from
> Linus's perspective. He wants a stable kernel (don't we all?) and
> always needs help squashing bugs before a release. *He* isn't the one
> developing kewl new features at that time. From his point of view it
> makes perfect sense to encourage people to work on the frozen branch.
You don't encourage people to work on the frozen branch by making life
difficult to those who have no interest in the frozen branch, since
they have no code to stabilize, just new one to write.
> I agree with Linus in wanting a stable kernel more than a featureful
> kernel. People actually *writing* the new features may have a
> different set of priorities....
I like a stable kernel too: having two releases instead of one
makes half of the changes go into one, half into the other.
The fewer the changes, the fewer the bugs, the fewer the work to get
it stable.
> Remember, the kernel is fully open source. If you *really* want to
> jump the gun and get a new kernel release cycle going, you are
> perfectly free to release your *own* series of kernels, incorporating
> the latest and greatest from around the world. It's been done before.
> Of course, you have to acquire enough credibility for people to take
> your patch series seriously. (Andrea gets away with it, Alan gets away
> with it, individual arch maintainers get away with it. You or I might
> have more trouble.)
The real trouble is that even if I start -tm, i won't be 2.5. I can't
put the changes Linus wants to put into it, and most of all, i can't
do it the way he likes. So it won't be a real 2.5, and noone will be
interested on it.
> > Thank you for pointing out what exacly the problem is. It's all in
> > the 'making it somewhat more inconvenient to develop new stuff'. I
> > think we should change it, to allow easier serious development at any
> > time.
>
> As I said, it's a conscious decision on Linus's part. As such, your
> arguments are unlikely to change it, since it's obviously something
> he's thought about.
I can always say he's wrong about that. Maybe he won't change his mind,
but I've done all I can. B-)
> We seem to understand each other. I am more than willing to drop the
> thread, if you are.
OK for me. After all, i can't make it clearer... and yet noone seems to
agree with me. Going back to lurker mode... B-)
>
> Peter
>
.TM.
--
____/ ____/ /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@ESI.it
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 23 2000 - 21:00:26 EST