Re: kernel structures 2.0.29->2.0.30

Chel van Gennip (
Mon, 28 Apr 1997 17:10:41 +0100 (WETDST)

Mike Jagdis wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, Chel van Gennip wrote:
>> To convince some software vendors I think specific versions should be certified as
>> "rock solid".
>Commercial software vendors don't even do this. If you check your
>licenses you'll almost certainly find an explicit statement that
>you should not expect the product to do *anything*. If you are
>willing to pay good money just for a guarantee that the media will
>be readable why do you expect more for free?

Yes, I do expect more. I do expect more because the source is
freely available. There are a lot of people finding and solving bugs.
If I find a bug I try to solve it too. I know is is very difficult
to get a bug fixed in other systems. How much publicity was needed
to get the pentium fdiv bug (Intel: minor flaw) fixed?

Some software vendors still are not convinced Linux is a high
quality system. To convince these vendors it is good to say in
advance: "version 2.0.30 has some major updates that may break
stability". The alternative is other people saying "Linux is not
a stable system, look at 2.0.30"

To be more succesful we need all these software vendors to get
us all the applications we need.