On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Sergey Kubushin wrote:
>
> > Hi, everybody.
> >
> > I wonder does anybody try to compile 2.3 kernels at all ?
> [SNIPPED...]
>
> Sure. I'm running 2.3.41. I was able to compile a number of previous
> 2.3.x kernels. However, not all modules, devices, or interfaces like
> RAID are going to work on beta kernels.
>
> Script started on Thu Feb 10 11:30:46 2000
> # finger @ftp.kernel.org
> [zeus.kernel.org]
>
> The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.2.14
> The latest beta version of the Linux kernel is: 2.3.42
> The latest prepatch (alpha) version *appears* to be: 2.3.43-8
>
> # exit
> Script done on Thu Feb 10 11:31:06 2000
>
> Note that the latest stable version is 2.2.14. The 2.3.x kernels
> are beta versions.
Please don't think I'm a dumb newbie :((
I can tell that latest _STABLE_ kernel is 2.1.125 which does run our primary
NS with several thousands zones having a 294 days uptime now. 2.2.xx is beta,
2.3.xx is pre-prealpha. Please don't tell than it's development etc., please
do try to explain how can one pretend he's developing some driver (e.g. RAID)
if this driver does not even compile ? I can understand buggy and unstable
drivers, but please do try to explain how can the driver which has one of
the files missing be developed and patched ? How can one make and send any
patches if the driver is incomplete ?
Furthermore, how can one pretend he's developing e.g. wanpipe driver if it
does not build with wanpipe headers ?
> You can help by enabling your options, making patches to get your
> devices to compile and, hopefully work, and submitting them.
I did a lot.
But it seems that developers have closed themselves in an ivory tower and
lost any connection to the reality :((
Can you point me to ANY 2.2.xx (announced to be _STABLE_) kernel, which does
at least build with all drivers enabled and modularized outta the box ? Can
you tell what was the reason of changing the cmdline interface in /proc that
the programs using setproctitle() (almost _EVERY_ daemon in system) are
shown with a circumsized command line ? Do this change have any sence at
all ? Is it worth fixing a helluva lotta programs (almost every daemon) if
it DOES have sence ? Can you tell why /proc/meminfo reports 0 K of shared
memory ?
How can one guess the REASON of such changes ? How can one fix something if
it does NOT know what the changes had been made for ? How can one help if
nobody cares even to answer clear and loud the ideas and the goal which
supposed to be achieved with such changes ? What if there were none, just a
mistake or kinda typo ? What have a decent distro maker do, hack _EVERY_
program using setproctitle(), spend his time and resources only for
somebody's error or wrong idea ?
And please don't tell that this is the distro makers' problem. Don't fool
yourself that Linux kernel does worth something per se. It's miscellaneous
distributions which is _BASED ON_ some kernel make sence. It's not a kernel
which makes a system (it's an important part though).
Sorry for flames, I can't be calm watching how is the Linux kernel getting
down...
===========================================================================
Sergey Kubushin aka the Tamer < > The impossible we do immediately.
e-mail: ksi@ksi-linux.com SK320-RIPE < > Miracles require 24-hour notice.
===========================================================================
-
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 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:00:18 EST