If you are using a 2.3.x kernel then you sort of are a developer per
definition,
even if your only contribution is to say "that feature doesn't
work/compile"
Commercial companies have just as unstable developer versions of their
systems. They are usually not available though, because they are only
made available for sale. 2.3.x isn't a "selling" version, and
the commercial distributors don't use 2.3.x kernels either.
Downloading a development kernel yourself is very much like obtaining a
nightly
windows build from microsoft. It is not for general consumption.
>Management summary: stuff like this sucks. I am but a programmer with a
>SMP box that likes to run the latest kernel. And yes, I expect all the
>kernels to compile out of the box. I don't think that this is too much
>to ask.
It is certainly too much to ask of the 2.3.x series. Don't expect them
to
compile or work or not corrupt your disk. They are experimental.
>And if there is just _one_ goof like the
>FAT problem, there are literally thousands of people who will run into
>this problem and be discouraged to upgrade their kernel in the future.
Sure. If people are discouraged by things like the FAT problem then
they certainly shouldn't use a developer kernel. They should *wait*
for the next stable release.
If you want to run the latest reasonably stable developer kernel then
follow the
kernel list closely. You may then find out which dev-kernels you can
run.
And which kernels you should avoid. Never run the very latest unless
you
can (and want to) deal with the occational troubles. In that case, send
bug reports but no complaints.
My experience is that 2.3.6 works well (on x86), and all filesystems
compile.
2.3.7 should be avoided. 2.3.8 works if you *don't* need FAT or >100M
files.
Helge Hafting
-
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/