Your misconception of the developement model

For the Linux Kernel is badly skewed. I am not trying to troll here. Please just read.

I am not arguing, that point about no 2.odd kernel series. I am arguing that do not know that the model never *DID* change. It has always been that way.

The Development stuff from the 2.1/3/5 or what have you series was being backported into the "Stable" Kernel as it was causing tremendous amount of work that really didn't need to be there.

The distributions were already "Stabilizing" the 2.0/2/4 kernels long before this announcement. Linus was not willing to branch again only to do the work under both trees. Instead, he just stated that things haven't changed just that they were clarified as to what was already happening for years. To this point, I had a discussion on this very subject with Greg Kroah-Hartman publically in the Linux Elitists mailing list, when the announcement happened, as he was the first to test it. Officially. I sad "How dare he test it out so quickly!" or some such.

The changes the Distros made ZIP--Zilch--Nada. They are still stabilizing the Linux kernel exactly the same way they were before, except the backporting of things from .7 to .6 is not needed. The devel is all happening in the Developer trees where it should have in the first place, Linus then pulls their tree and does manual merging and rejection... in the BitKeeper archive. These changes are all from the Development trees that are available as well. All of the kernel developers are doing tremndous amounts of testing, the same way "supposed" development model was, just that they don't have to track 2 sets of code. Now given that the APIs have not changed drastically, this lends support for the current dev model. Now Linus *DID* say that if there were some changes being applied that made HUGE swaths of the Kernel Unusable, he would branch to 2.7, until it was working well enough to merge back in 2.6 and then stop the branch. He also said, there might be multiple starts and re-merges of the 2.7 branch.

I read nearly all of the discussions on the LKML, I am subscribed, I am pretty much read only. It is interesting to watch/read.

The 2.6.10/11 kernel is far-far-far ahead of what the 2.4.10 kernel was in comparing 2.6.10 with 2.6.0 and 2.4.10 with 2.4.0. To tell the truth, there are far fewer problems in 2.6.10 than in 2.4.10.

I pick on 2.4.10 mainly that was a serious change that should tell you exactly what I am telling you (2.4.11 was BORKED so bad it was changed to 2.4.11-DO_NOT_USE.tar.gz or some such). It has been going on for years, this magically changed dev model.

Tell me why you believe the 2.6 kernel is not stable for enterprise/production use?

Post #196,633 by folkert 2/28/05 12:24:30 PM 2/28/05 12:29:31 PM Reply	Your misconception of the developement model For the Linux Kernel is badly skewed. I am not trying to troll here. Please just read. I am not arguing, that point about no 2.odd kernel series. I am arguing that do not know that the model never DID change. It has always been that way. The Development stuff from the 2.1/3/5 or what have you series was being backported into the "Stable" Kernel as it was causing tremendous amount of work that really didn't need to be there. The distributions were already "Stabilizing" the 2.0/2/4 kernels long before this announcement. Linus was not willing to branch again only to do the work under both trees. Instead, he just stated that things haven't changed just that they were clarified as to what was already happening for years. To this point, I had a discussion on this very subject with Greg Kroah-Hartman publically in the Linux Elitists mailing list, when the announcement happened, as he was the first to test it. Officially. I sad "How dare he test it out so quickly!" or some such. The changes the Distros made ZIP--Zilch--Nada. They are still stabilizing the Linux kernel exactly the same way they were before, except the backporting of things from .7 to .6 is not needed. The devel is all happening in the Developer trees where it should have in the first place, Linus then pulls their tree and does manual merging and rejection... in the BitKeeper archive. These changes are all from the Development trees that are available as well. All of the kernel developers are doing tremndous amounts of testing, the same way "supposed" development model was, just that they don't have to track 2 sets of code. Now given that the APIs have not changed drastically, this lends support for the current dev model. Now Linus DID say that if there were some changes being applied that made HUGE swaths of the Kernel Unusable, he would branch to 2.7, until it was working well enough to merge back in 2.6 and then stop the branch. He also said, there might be multiple starts and re-merges of the 2.7 branch. I read nearly all of the discussions on the LKML, I am subscribed, I am pretty much read only. It is interesting to watch/read. The 2.6.10/11 kernel is far-far-far ahead of what the 2.4.10 kernel was in comparing 2.6.10 with 2.6.0 and 2.4.10 with 2.4.0. To tell the truth, there are far fewer problems in 2.6.10 than in 2.4.10. I pick on 2.4.10 mainly that was a serious change that should tell you exactly what I am telling you (2.4.11 was BORKED so bad it was changed to 2.4.11-DO_NOT_USE.tar.gz or some such). It has been going on for years, this magically changed dev model. Tell me why you believe the 2.6 kernel is not stable for enterprise/production use? -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [link\|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230\|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Military Intelligence"] No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source] Edited by folkert Feb. 28, 2005, 12:29:31 PM EST Expand All History
Post #196,642 by broomberg 2/28/05 12:56:35 PM Reply	I said the "vanilla" 2.6 was unsuitable Not the ones from the distributions. There are many features that I consider enterprise ready, congealing in the 2.6 kernel. In any cases, they were externally available in the distributions for quite some time, just not RH, which is where I'm forced to be. But of course, we will will not "move" to AS 4, but be stuck with AS 3, for quite some time. No direct upgrade path, and I would not take it even if there was. I assume the next Linux server we install will try AS 4, but it will really depend on the 3rd party applications be certified on it. I have no argument with your description. Like I titled my post, "My uninformed take on the matter".
Post #196,646 by folkert 2/28/05 1:15:07 PM Reply	Mkay... now you are informed. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [link\|http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=134485&cid=11233230\|"Microsoft Security" is an even better oxymoron than "Military Intelligence"] No matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link\|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp\|source]

Welcome to IWETHEY!