2.2 is supposed to _be_ stable, not gradually stabilize. That's what 2.1/2.3 are
for.
>
> > 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.
tell that to redhat/debian whoever.
>
> Here's my suggestion. If you want to work with the development kernel
> in production mode with binary sources,
binary sources? heh. See above, anyway: the original complaint was not
about 2.1 kernels pulling the rug from under ur feet, but about 2.0 kernels
doing that.
> 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.
what do u think MIT is doing? u seriously expect the best university in
the world to outsource stuff like 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.
true. the point however, is that if the developers don't follow _some_
requirements, pretty soon they might be the only ones running the system.
That is not something anybody here _wants_ to see happen.
-- arvind
-
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/