On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:23:15 -0500 (EST) Ric Messier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I beg to differ here. The 2.5 series was for making sure everything > worked. Once they renumbered to 2.6, it became production-ready. I > don't understand how commercial software gets sneering comments about > waiting for the first couple of patchsets before using it but open > source can be apologized for when you have to do the exact same thing. > > Sorry for the rant but sometimes what appears to be hypocrisy just > drives me nuts. > It would only be hypocritical if I sneered at production software, which I don't :) Also, you don't have the sheer number of users for the 2.5 kernel that you have once the 2.6 is released. I think you have to look at the odd numbered kernels as more of a proof of concept, getting all the drivers to work, etc. When 2.6 was first released, it was production ready, in the sense that it worked, however I don't think that implies that it is as fast and tricked out as it is going to get. The main difference between closed source and open source is that we participate in the development of the software, which is, I guess, why we are engaged in this conversation. Rambly I know, but it is early :) -- Ian Truelsen Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AIM: ihtruelsen MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: iantruelsen Homepage: http://www.ihtruelsen.dyndns.org Signature key (742B740D) available at pgp.mit.edu
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
