> Oh yeah?
> To me, this is the complete opposite of what I have seen in the past.
> Yes, there are a lot of file systems out there. BUT:
>
> reiserfs fails to compile all the time. First the dentry stuff
> broken, then the semaphore initialization broke, now the buffer
> cache stuff, tomorrow what?
It is being _developed_, it is _not_ part of the regular kernel yet.
[...]
> Wait, did I say well-publicized kernel API? The kernel API is not just
> not well-publicized, it changes all the time! Hell, how can it be that
> a supposedly stable kernel release does not even _compile_ without
> syntax error on non-x86 platforms?! This is not only embarassing, it is
> much more unprofessional than Windows NT needing BIOS support to install
> on Alpha.
Point about API changing taken. Other rant you can keep to yourself.
> Let me reiterate some things that happened to me recently:
>
> 1. I have an Alpha here. [...]
Alphas are relatively rare, so not that much testing goes into them as into
i386. You could pay somebody to do it for you... might even come cheaper
than the licence for DEC Unix (or whatever it is called today).
> 2. I have a laptop. pcmcia is a vital kernel part for laptop users.
Not part of the stock kernel either.
> 3. ALSA. ALSA is a must for me at home. [...]
Not part of the stock kernel.
> 4. FAT. 2.3.7 does not compile with FAT file system. Excuse me?
Ever heard of mtools? FAT is broken, and has been for a long time. The
design of FAT is in itself broken, that's why. And not _that_ many people
use it, or it would have been fixed by now.
> 5. Modules. I get unresolved symbols every other kernel. Does nobody
> try to compile everything in once and everything as module once
> before releasing a kernel? Yes, that is work. [...]
Have you even done a rough calculation of _how_much_ work this is?
Jeez, they get the kernel and the whole userland for free (or nearly so) in
exchange for the privilege of doing testing of the stuff, and complain when
it doesn't work smoothly. Even when they do stuff that is _clearly_
unsupported (RedHat-5.2 has some hacks for running 2.2 kernels, but *on
your own risk*) they complain loudly...
> 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.
Just go over to the Support Department of your favorite commercial Unix
vendor, ask for somebody to help you. Price for Premium, round-the-clock
support is quite steep, mind you. And you'll only get kernels that are
deemed fit for public consumption in the first place. Oh, you also might
have to junk your machine and get a supported one as part of the deal.
Either you stay with the distribution you picked, buy the official version
and get support, or you decide to live dangerously and download your own
kernels. In both cases, better shut up unless you have something to say.
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513- 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/