In defense of [EMAIL PROTECTED] (I think I've lost the original
email with the realname attached), he has already realized in private mail
that he accidentally misread my message to construe that I was talking
about 2.0->2.2, not 2.0.n to 2.0.n+1 like I meant it to say. So, we don't
need to keep harping on that - it was an honest mistake.
-Edwin
At 09:11 AM 2/4/99 EST, Kev 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.
>
>we're not talking about going from 2.0 to 2.2; we're talking about going
>from 2.0.33 to 2.0.34. In the past, many changes have been made which
>have broken binary compatibility without warning and without good reason.
>*THIS MUST NOT CONTINUE HAPPENING* if Linux expects to get anywhere.
>--
>Kevin L. Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Foo | MIT Computer Science - BS '98, MEng. '99
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Compaq Computer Corp. - Cambridge Research Lab
(617) 225-9715 | MIT Residential Computing Consultant (RCC) Developer
| MIT 6.270 - http://web.mit.edu/6.270
"Love must be sincere; Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."
http://hesed.mit.edu/~efoo - Romans 12:9 <><
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
