[2479] in SIPB_Linux_Development
Re: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Arvind Sankar)
Thu Feb 4 09:12:44 1999
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 09:12:24 -0500
From: Arvind Sankar <arvinds@MIT.EDU>
To: yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu, Edwin Foo <efoo@MIT.EDU>
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, warlord@MIT.EDU, xiphmont@MIT.EDU,
linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-dev@MIT.EDU, jered@MIT.EDU,
nemo@MIT.EDU, linux-scsi@vger.rutgers.edu, cox@idecnet.com,
cdwrite@lists.debian.org
Reply-To: Arvind Sankar <arvinds@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199902041607.JAA18863@chelm.cs.nmt.edu>; from yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu on Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 09:07:27AM -0700
On Thu, Feb 04, 1999 at 09:07:27AM -0700, yodaiken@chelm.cs.nmt.edu wrote:
> > Unfortunately, I think it is a problem you have to take up and deal with.
> > Recompiling sources for entire server setups in a live production
>
> So you use the 2.0 version until a 2.2 version stabilizes. The problem
> really is that the Linux unreliable development kernel is so good that
> people actually want to run production systems on it, and then complain when
> it does not stay stable.
2.2 is supposed to _be_ stable, not gradually stabilize. That's what 2.1/2.3 are
for.
>
> > Besides, binaries are still the best way to get up and running as fast as
> > possible. Waiting to bring up a replacement server because it's still
>
> Really? And what about waiting until the binary only patches get shipped by
> the vendor. For those of use with experience on binary only systems, this
> complaint is completely mysterious.
tell that to redhat/debian whoever.
>
> Here's my suggestion. If you want to work with the development kernel
> in production mode with binary sources,
binary sources? heh. See above, anyway: the original complaint was not
about 2.1 kernels pulling the rug from under ur feet, but about 2.0 kernels
doing that.
> pay for it. That is, get someone or some organization to agree to
> maintain a binary compatible version of the system and to provide you
> with updates. There are many people who will do this.
what do u think MIT is doing? u seriously expect the best university in
the world to outsource stuff like this?
>
> The argument: "we are using the open source kernel developed by other
> peoples work to make money and therefore the developers that we don't
> pay need to follow our requirements", is not a persuasive one.
true. the point however, is that if the developers don't follow _some_
requirements, pretty soon they might be the only ones running the system.
That is not something anybody here _wants_ to see happen.
-- arvind
