From: Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>
To: Massimo Cetra <mcetra@navynet.it>
Cc: Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca>,
Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>,
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>,
William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: My thoughts on the "new development model"
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 14:08:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4d8e3fd3041026050823d012dc@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00c201c4bb4c$56d1b8b0$e60a0a0a@guendalin>
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 13:09:59 +0200, Massimo Cetra <mcetra@navynet.it> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 26 October 2004 01:40, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > > Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't see the need for a development kernel, and it is
> > desirable
> > > > to be
> > > > able to run kernel.org kernels.
> > >
> > > Problem is, kernel.org 'release' kernels are quite buggy. For
> > > example 2.6.9 has a long list of bugs:
> > >
> > > Sure, the next release will (may?) fix these bugs, but it will
> > > definitely add a whole set of new ones.
> >
>
> > To my mind this just points out the need for a bug fix
> > branch. e.g. a
> > branch containing just bug/security fixes against the current
> > stable kernel. It might also be worth keeping the branch
> > active for the n-1 stable kernel too.
>
> To my mind, we only need to make clear that a stable kernel is a stable
> kernel.
> Not a kernel for experiments.
2.6 is not an experimental kernel. Not at all.
> To my mind, stock 2.6 kernels are nice for nerds trying patches and
> willing to recompile their kernel once a day. They are not suitable for
> servers. Several times on testing machines, switching from a 2.6 to the
> next one has caused bugs on PCI, acpi, networking and so on.
I don't understand what you mean here.
Did you report these problems to lkml ?
It's the firts time I heard about this kind of problems.
> The direction is lost. How many patchsets for vanilla kernel exist?
It was the same for 2.4. And that's not _BAD_, is _GOOD_.
> Someone has decided that linux must go on desktops as well and
> developing new magnificent features for desktop users is causing serious
> problems to the ones who use linux at work on production servers.
Who ?
> 2.4 tree is still the best solution for production.
> 2.6 tree is great for gentoo users who like gcc consuming all CPU
> (maxumum respect to gentoo but I prefer debian)
I'm sorry, but you sound like a troll...
--
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-26 12:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 115+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-26 5:40 Chuck Ebbert
2004-10-26 10:44 ` Ed Tomlinson
2004-10-26 11:09 ` Massimo Cetra
2004-10-26 12:08 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi [this message]
2004-10-26 19:03 ` Mathieu Segaud
2004-10-26 20:16 ` Let's make a small change to the process Paolo Ciarrocchi
2004-10-26 20:22 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-26 20:26 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2004-10-26 20:33 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-26 20:36 ` Dave Jones
2004-10-26 20:44 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2004-10-27 0:51 ` Jan Knutar
2004-10-26 20:48 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-26 21:00 ` Paolo Ciarrocchi
2004-10-26 15:03 ` My thoughts on the "new development model" William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-26 21:19 ` Ed Tomlinson
2004-10-27 3:05 ` Marcos D. Marado Torres
2004-10-27 4:29 ` Rik van Riel
2004-10-27 5:13 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-10-27 5:23 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-27 6:04 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-10-27 6:28 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-27 6:50 ` Massimo Cetra
2004-10-27 6:56 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-11-16 16:43 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-10-27 13:48 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-27 14:57 ` Theodore Ts'o
2004-10-27 15:35 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-27 19:46 ` Marcos D. Marado Torres
2004-10-27 21:08 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-27 21:14 ` Rik van Riel
2004-10-27 17:55 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-27 13:38 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-27 5:25 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-28 6:46 ` michael
2004-10-28 7:13 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-28 7:28 ` Hacksaw
2004-10-29 21:30 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-10-28 7:57 ` Massimo Cetra
2004-10-28 16:14 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-28 17:27 ` Theodore Ts'o
2004-10-28 23:19 ` michael
2004-10-29 0:02 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-27 4:26 ` Rik van Riel
2004-11-16 16:18 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-10-26 12:37 ` Barry K. Nathan
2004-10-26 14:40 ` Espen Fjellvær Olsen
2004-10-26 14:28 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-26 14:41 ` Gene Heskett
2004-10-26 14:24 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-27 15:27 ` Alan Cox
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-10-28 23:33 Chuck Ebbert
2004-10-28 23:53 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-28 13:04 Chuck Ebbert
2004-10-28 13:15 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-10-28 15:03 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-28 15:07 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-28 17:33 ` Alan Cox
2004-10-28 18:39 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-29 13:19 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-10-29 17:49 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-27 19:50 Chuck Ebbert
2004-10-27 21:40 ` Alan Cox
2004-10-28 2:59 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2004-10-28 10:16 ` Alan Cox
2004-10-27 0:00 Chuck Ebbert
2004-10-27 0:24 ` Dmitry Torokhov
2004-10-27 0:36 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-27 0:36 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-27 2:45 ` Marcos D. Marado Torres
2004-10-27 3:19 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-27 2:47 ` Marcos D. Marado Torres
2004-10-26 16:32 Chuck Ebbert
2004-10-26 17:37 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-26 15:54 Chuck Ebbert
2004-10-26 17:50 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-22 20:03 My thoughts on the "new development model"(A bit late tho) Espen Fjellvær Olsen
2004-10-22 21:52 ` My thoughts on the "new development model" Espen Fjellvær Olsen
2004-10-22 22:12 ` Clemens Schwaighofer
2004-10-23 12:55 ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2004-10-24 3:04 ` Clemens Schwaighofer
2004-10-22 22:45 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-22 22:50 ` Espen Fjellvær Olsen
2004-10-22 23:21 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-23 0:41 ` Lee Revell
2004-10-22 22:57 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-10-23 0:09 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-23 2:40 ` Lee Revell
2004-10-25 21:15 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-10-25 22:08 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-26 16:12 ` Charles Shannon Hendrix
2004-10-26 16:53 ` Mark Nipper
2004-10-23 1:40 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-10-23 5:04 ` Greg KH
2004-10-26 1:07 ` Adrian Bunk
2004-10-23 5:52 ` Willy Tarreau
2004-10-23 14:18 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-23 19:58 ` Kronos
2004-10-23 20:05 ` Espen Fjellvær Olsen
2004-10-22 22:58 ` Lee Revell
2004-10-22 23:21 ` Paul Fulghum
2004-10-22 23:43 ` William Lee Irwin III
2004-10-23 8:01 ` Boris Bukowski
2004-10-26 16:01 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-26 16:44 ` John Richard Moser
2004-10-26 16:58 ` Hua Zhong
2004-10-26 18:53 ` Diego Calleja
2004-10-26 19:33 ` Paul Fulghum
2004-10-27 15:31 ` Alan Cox
2004-10-27 15:30 ` Alan Cox
2004-10-27 18:37 ` Hua Zhong
2004-10-27 21:39 ` Alan Cox
2004-10-27 16:59 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-10-27 19:27 ` Marcos D. Marado Torres
2004-10-26 18:01 ` Stephen Hemminger
2004-10-26 18:38 ` John Richard Moser
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4d8e3fd3041026050823d012dc@mail.gmail.com \
--to=paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com \
--cc=76306.1226@compuserve.com \
--cc=davidsen@tmr.com \
--cc=edt@aei.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mcetra@navynet.it \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome