lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Why Linux is doomed (was: Re: FENRIS (nwfs) 1.4.2 Source Code Available)
    On Wed, Jun 23, 1999 at 08:11:53PM -0000, leitner@convergence.de wrote:
    > I don't think it is too much to ask that before you release a kernel,
    > you try to compile it. If it is a stable kernel, then compile it twice,
    > once with everything as a module, once with everything linked it. That
    > should be the bare minimum that just has to be done before you release a
    > kernel. Should Linus really be unwilling to do that, then he should
    > just post an URL to a /private/ directory here so someone can grab it
    > and do both compiles.

    I don't get it. Why private? So less people compile it? So less configurations
    get tested? You would be happy if the kernel just compiled, but didn't work?

    >
    > > > 4. FAT. 2.3.7 does not compile with FAT file system. Excuse me?
    > > > This is the single most frequently used file system besides ext2,
    > > > and 2.3.7 does not compile with it? Because of a syntax error?!
    > > Details? Details are the difference between a rant and something
    > > helpful, useful, and constructive.
    >
    > It does not compile.

    Of course it doesn't. What's your point? Everybody who bothers to read
    linux-kernel knows that it doesn't, and knows why it doesn't. If you want to
    run a kernel that is on a development branch, that was moreover expressly
    earmarked `Don't run this unless you're sure you can afford to trash your
    system', you _do_ have to at least bother to read the mailing list.

    > > Also, does it really surprise you that a development kernel in
    > > general, and one in which *major* changes have been made and well
    > > publicized, in particular, might have some problems in the areas
    > > directly involved in the changes.
    >
    > Sorry, but if the second most frequently used file system does not
    > compile, then don't release it. I am not counting the pseudo file
    > systems proc and pts here, obviously.

    You don't get it, do you? This isn't a release. Your complaints about
    breakages in 2.2.x are perfectly valid. It sucks when something earmarked
    stable starts corrupting your disk. Something's wrong with 2.2.9-10. And this
    btw, shows why your model doesn't work very well: none of the `core developers'
    can reproduce this problem on their hardware.

    >
    > > > 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.
    > > It is not too much to expect other people to give you something that you
    > > want, without your incurring even minimal responsibilities?
    >
    > Huh?
    > Please think your answer over.
    > It is people like me who do the quality assurance for Linux.
    > People like me who complain. And if there is just _one_ goof like the
    > FAT problem, there are literally thousands of people who will run into
    > this problem and be discouraged to upgrade their kernel in the future.

    This is a problem with the development model of the kernel. Some people do
    prefer other styles. I do myself: I'd like read-only access to a CVS tree.
    But Linus likes this one. End of argument.

    -- arvind

    -
    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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:3.443 / U:0.008 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site