> R-C, please behave.. this is cauldron, it breaks stuff and we almost want it > (at least sometimes :)). If you don't like the way it is, please don't use it!
Sander, As long as Linux distros are such idiotically designed that one can _not_ have the latest packages for the applications I need, and this also includes the latest KDE in a _stable_ distro (unless you're using something like some PPA in Ubuntu, or maybe you're luck enough to have backports in your preferred distro, or maybe you're using openSUSE and one of the gazillions extra repos has what you want), I _have_ to use cauldron/cooker/rawhide/unstable! This is not the place for a flamewar but, as I am using Linux since 1995, over all this time, this is one thing I keep saying: "THE ONE AND ONLY THING properly designed in Windows is that you can use (almost) ANY version of ANY application w/o breaking the system and w/o upgrading the system!" In all the Linux distros, once the official repos have upgraded an application, you're normally supposed to use it, because downgrading is: (1) difficult; (2) discouraged. Sticking to a _stable_ release of any Linux distro for its supported lifetime or until the next stable release is out means that, for most of the time. you'll be using OLDER versions of many applications -- whereas, should those applications be cross-platform (e.g. VLC, LibreOffice, Calibre, etc. etc.), any Windows user is able to use ANY desired version of these applications W/O BREAKING THE WHOLE SYSTEM! Not to mention that whoever still complains about the "DLL Hell" in Windows has probably never really used Linux enough. I can see (1) broken dependencies; (2) breakages; (3) packages that need to be rebuilt because some library has been upgraded and the API or the ABI has changed; (4) libraries that need to be upgraded because the stupid developer of some application (package) can't release any update w/o requiring the latest and greatest version of some lib; ...all these, not in cauldron/cooker/rawhide/unstable, but even in stable distros too! Because, postulate 2, "whereas different versions of system DLLs can coexist in a given Windows release, this is typically impossible in Linux, BY DESIGN" (and this is not about GTK+1 coexisting with GTK+2, nor about KDE3 compatibility libs in KDE4, and also not about installing in /opt or other tricks). By design, Linux has inherited a lot of decisions made decades ago in Unix, decisions that are not appropriate for today's desktop users, but we have to live with that. To end this flamewar: when I decide to use a cauldron/cooker/rawhide/unstable system, I expect I will need to fix some breakages, but at least (1) let me have a proper choice of kernels in GRUB, including the previous one; (2) don't force UNRELEASED kernels on me! Breaking a package is one thing, breaking the kernel is a totally different one. Postulate #3: "In Windows, adding support for some new hardware means you just have to bring a new driver. In Linux, it requires a new kernel -- which typically means breakages, regressions, the need to rebuild a lot, and so on." Most of you are very skilled Linux developers and packages, and some of you have also been Windows developers at some point. I'm puzzled that you're unable to see the flaws in Linux -- not that you would be able to do anything. As Linux is not a centralized project (except for Linus' dictatorship over the kernel), major redesign is impossible. But still, unstable is unstable, and pushing a kernel update like that... And no, I won't investigate anything, I'll not file any report on what it's not working with this kernel and my hardware. As a sign of protest over the way the kernel policies are with Cauldron, I'll use 2.6.38.8 for as long as it's possible, leaving to other guinea pigs the task to blame, complain, report, fix. Regressions in kernels are the thing I hate the most in this world. I've experienced kernel regressions in the past every 6 months with each and every Ubuntu release -- and those were kernels supposed to be tested well-enough. What I like in Linux is never the kernel. Never ever. It's monolithic, impossible to be properly tested, and managed by a stupid fat arrogant guy called Linus. The only kernels I loved were 1.2.13 and1.3.18. After that, the kernel was just a nuisance -- like the government, the taxes, the Microsoft tax, etc. R-C aka beranger
