>
> Everything is as it was before. The VM change seems a little unusual to
> some people, but if that's your only reason to question the versioning
> scheme you need to get over it...and quickly.
That wasn't helpful. :-( In general I'm questioning the way the versioning
worked in the past vs how it's working now. Derek answered pretty well my
question. From that answer I get the idea that Linus knew that a larger group
of people wouldn't test the kernel out because it carried the stigma of being
"experimental" or "unstable." So he played a semantic trick on people to get
more people to put it through its paces.
I think this is bad for the credibility of the kernel hackers (and
Linus/Linux especially), because it gives the idea that we can't trust what
they say is good/not-good, stable/unstable. If people are (g)rumbling that
the 2.4.x kernel isn't stable, or that you can crash it under heavy loads,
how is Joe Corporate User going to know what he should use? Or is he going to
want to use it at all, because he can't rely on the information that says,
"2.4.x is stable"? A lot of people don't want to test out kernels. I know I
don't. This can't be good for Linux.
Russell
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:06:56 EDT