> david@cobite.com said:
> > I have no problem with the updating of tools... if I didn't want to
> > upgrade tools, I don't have to upgrade kernels either, right?
> > I say, do the updates.
> Anyone who has refused to upgrade their userspace tools since
> installation is almost certainly running daemons with known security
> exploits in them.
> What are these people whinging about, and why are we bothering to listen
> to them?
> Tools change. Bugs are found and fixed, and sometimes you have to
> upgrade. Get used to it - it's not going to stop happening.
This is an amazing thread. A dozen posts and no one has indicated whether
they are talking about updating 2.2 or 2.3. It seems like to many
developers, even numbered kernels are developmental and odd numbered
kernels are experimental. There is scant evidence on this list that anyone
sees a need for a kernel that is stable in anything but name.
The new RAID code breaks existing configurations. Such changes are
sometimes needed. However, they should never be put directly into a stable
kernel. Deliberately breaking production systems with a kernel upgrade
_within_ a "stable" kernel series is unconscionable.
Now that companies are beginning to run Linux on production systems, the
carefree attitude toward "stable" kernels has to change. I'd love to be
able to recommend Linux to my clients on Wall Street, but there have to be
stable kernels first. That means nothing changes unless it's a bug fix.
Everything else (updated drivers, new features, code cleanups) waits for
the next major release. Otherwise, there is little difference between odd
and even numbered kernels.
I hope the updates are ready in time to make it into 2.3, but I think
Linus has already left the feature freeze too late to have a stable 2.4
this year.
M
-
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/