Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Feb 2000 19:17:23 +0200 (EET) | From | Sergey Kubushin <> | Subject | Re: Does anybody try to compile the 2.3 kernels at all ? :(( |
| |
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Sergey Kubushin wrote: > > > Hi, everybody. > > > > I wonder does anybody try to compile 2.3 kernels at all ? > [SNIPPED...] > > Sure. I'm running 2.3.41. I was able to compile a number of previous > 2.3.x kernels. However, not all modules, devices, or interfaces like > RAID are going to work on beta kernels. > > Script started on Thu Feb 10 11:30:46 2000 > # finger @ftp.kernel.org > [zeus.kernel.org] > > The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.2.14 > The latest beta version of the Linux kernel is: 2.3.42 > The latest prepatch (alpha) version *appears* to be: 2.3.43-8 > > # exit > Script done on Thu Feb 10 11:31:06 2000 > > Note that the latest stable version is 2.2.14. The 2.3.x kernels > are beta versions.
Please don't think I'm a dumb newbie :((
I can tell that latest _STABLE_ kernel is 2.1.125 which does run our primary NS with several thousands zones having a 294 days uptime now. 2.2.xx is beta, 2.3.xx is pre-prealpha. Please don't tell than it's development etc., please do try to explain how can one pretend he's developing some driver (e.g. RAID) if this driver does not even compile ? I can understand buggy and unstable drivers, but please do try to explain how can the driver which has one of the files missing be developed and patched ? How can one make and send any patches if the driver is incomplete ?
Furthermore, how can one pretend he's developing e.g. wanpipe driver if it does not build with wanpipe headers ?
> You can help by enabling your options, making patches to get your > devices to compile and, hopefully work, and submitting them.
I did a lot.
But it seems that developers have closed themselves in an ivory tower and lost any connection to the reality :((
Can you point me to ANY 2.2.xx (announced to be _STABLE_) kernel, which does at least build with all drivers enabled and modularized outta the box ? Can you tell what was the reason of changing the cmdline interface in /proc that the programs using setproctitle() (almost _EVERY_ daemon in system) are shown with a circumsized command line ? Do this change have any sence at all ? Is it worth fixing a helluva lotta programs (almost every daemon) if it DOES have sence ? Can you tell why /proc/meminfo reports 0 K of shared memory ?
How can one guess the REASON of such changes ? How can one fix something if it does NOT know what the changes had been made for ? How can one help if nobody cares even to answer clear and loud the ideas and the goal which supposed to be achieved with such changes ? What if there were none, just a mistake or kinda typo ? What have a decent distro maker do, hack _EVERY_ program using setproctitle(), spend his time and resources only for somebody's error or wrong idea ?
And please don't tell that this is the distro makers' problem. Don't fool yourself that Linux kernel does worth something per se. It's miscellaneous distributions which is _BASED ON_ some kernel make sence. It's not a kernel which makes a system (it's an important part though).
Sorry for flames, I can't be calm watching how is the Linux kernel getting down...
=========================================================================== Sergey Kubushin aka the Tamer < > The impossible we do immediately. e-mail: ksi@ksi-linux.com SK320-RIPE < > Miracles require 24-hour notice. ===========================================================================
- 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/
| |