Re: Development tree, PLEASE?

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On 1/20/06, Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com> wrote:
>
>
> --On January 20, 2006 9:20:19 PM +0100 Jesper Juhl <jesper.juhl@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 1/20/06, Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com> wrote:
> >>
> > [snip]
> >> I'm trying to think of a way to relate this better but I just can't.
> >> What's needed is a 'target' for incremental updates, things like minor
> >> changes, bugfixes, etc.  I feel like supporting entirely new hardware
> >
> > That's called a vendor kernel.
> > You pay the vendor money, the vendor maintains a stable (as in feature
> > frozen) kernel, backports bugfixes for you etc.
> > Take a look at the RedHat and SuSE enterprise kernels, they seem to be
> > what you want.
>
...
> RH is trying to be everything, which is fine for them and their intended audience.  I've never
> really been happy with their kernels, nor with their base os.  Many are
> though.
>
> Why can't a community do this though?  I guess the answer is there's no
> reason a community cant, jsut the mainline developers are not going to,
> because it's too much work.
>
...
>
> I think stable should also include bugfixes and updates without having to
> take (potentially, if not certainly) incompatible changes along with that.

Are you volunteering?

--
Dmitry