Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 23 Jul 2004 12:39:37 -0400 | From | David Ford <> | Subject | Re: A users thoughts on the new dev. model |
| |
This is malarkey, 99.9% pure FUD. I personally use just about every kernel revision there is that is "newest", i.e. I use 2.4.x until 2.5 appears then I switch to 2.5.x. I may skip a few versions here and there due to frequent releases or a known brown bag release. However by far and large even the development or "unstable" line of releases as some people have a bad habit of calling them, are far more reliable than Windows.
I use odd.x releases even on my servers. Every once in a while there's a significant bug in code that I'll have an issue with that can't be worked around. So I avoid that version.
In short, your statement is pure bullsh*t, because there is very little code put out that is actually a messy or unstable release. Most bugs are quickly fixed, worked around, or avoided for that person because that feature isn't really such a necessity. Linux (*nix) gives you a LOT of ways to get a particular task done but people have this penchant for finding a way that is broken and hyping/harping it up to make a big issue out of it instead of just reporting the bug and getting the job done in a different fashion.
"Oh my gawd it's a bug, let me piss on everyone's doorstep and make caustic remarks on LKML about horribly broken code. Never mind you that I can probably get it done another way."
Give the developers a little credit, we all make mistakes; they happen to fix theirs pretty fast and they're downright honest about fessing up to them.
David
>>From the LWM story i understood that linux will be like windows: >lots of "features" but no stability, except if you use a > distribution kernel. And that seriously made me think about > using another free *nix for a stable system. > begin:vcard fn:David Ford n:Ford;David email;internet:david@blue-labs.org title:Industrial Geek tel;home:Ask please tel;cell:(203) 650-3611 x-mozilla-html:TRUE version:2.1 end:vcard
| |