On 2007-11-13 13:28 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
> The only problem with djb's scheme is that you cannot mirror the software
> unless given permission from the author. No, not even unmodified source.
So? That's why I also call it the "piractic license" and the "apathy
license" -- do what
nd many
> other things have been turned into crap, largely due to world domination
> plans. (See the "idiot box Linux" link in one of the recent posts.)
Everybody knows the story of X server development model, which has been very
ineffective until recent xorg-x11 developments. It's
Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
Well, I'm using two years old 2.6.7 kernel, because the newer
ones have become utter and total crap. (See the link in the
previous post.) It will likely be my last Linux kernel ever,
that I will use until this system becomes simply too obsolete,
at which point, if not
Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
Well, I'm using two years old 2.6.7 kernel, because the newer
ones have become utter and total crap. (See the link in the
previous post.) It will likely be my last Linux kernel ever,
that I will use until this system becomes simply too obsolete,
at which point, if not
to world domination
plans. (See the idiot box Linux link in one of the recent posts.)
Everybody knows the story of X server development model, which has been very
ineffective until recent xorg-x11 developments. It's just been 3 releases (7.0
and 7.1 count as one) since X.org took over. Cut it some
On 2007-11-13 13:28 +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote:
The only problem with djb's scheme is that you cannot mirror the software
unless given permission from the author. No, not even unmodified source.
So? That's why I also call it the piractic license and the apathy
license -- do what you can
On 2007-11-13 00:39 +0100, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
> That's the problem(tm).
>
> Contrary to Closed Source Software all(!) OSS-Software is
> interdependent. There is no "Stand-Alone"-Software. There is always at
> least "libc". (Scripts depend on a script-interpreter, which in turn
>
On 12.11.2007 17:18, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> On 2007-11-12, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Geeks like you and me want the latest software
> > (I'm using Debian unstable/testing).
> >
> > But most users want a Linux installation that simply works - and this
> > includes all software on
Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>> The core libc and supporting libraries is the core. and the toolchain
>> the core dev. Those can be updated twice or even once a year. The kernel
>> can be updated once a month if you like.
>>
>
> A new release of the Linux kernel has more than half a million lines of
On 2007-11-12, Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dont understand. You are supposed to go to jail for looking at closed
> source, right? And licenses are very expensive. I could not afford them
> when i started out but now i would rather spend the money on other
> things like
On 2007-11-12, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Either they are empty transition packages depending on the linux-*
> packages or you are not using Debian stable but Debian oldstable (the
> latter would be funny in the context of your complaints...).
Well, I'm using two years old 2.6.7
Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
>
>> But the good thing about open source software is that when you believe
>> your ideas are better than what current distributions do you can
>> implement your ideas and create your own distribution.
>>
>
> Haha, the typical FOSS advocate's fallacy. Quote:
>
> “You
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:16:26PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> On 2007-11-12 17:56 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Yes, by asking immediately
> > Is this issue still present with $latest_upstream_version?
>
> That's still a user complaining about problems fixed ages ago,
> and a couple more
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:14:57 +0100
From: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List
Subject: Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 a
On 2007-11-12 17:56 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Yes, by asking immediately
> Is this issue still present with $latest_upstream_version?
That's still a user complaining about problems fixed ages ago,
and a couple more who never even bothered complaining, just
decided that the software is crap
On 2007-11-12, Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Geeks like you and me want the latest software
> (I'm using Debian unstable/testing).
>
> But most users want a Linux installation that simply works - and this
> includes all software on the system at all times.
I'm not in either category.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:13:41AM +0800, Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:51:25PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> >
> >> On 2007-11-12, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:02:54PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> On 2007-11-12 16:20 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The problem is not what the distributions ship, the problem is simply
> > that problems with distribution packaged software should be reported
> > to the distribution, not
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:51:25PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
>
>> On 2007-11-12, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection
>>> of software ve
On 2007-11-12 16:20 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The problem is not what the distributions ship, the problem is simply
> that problems with distribution packaged software should be reported
> to the distribution, not upstream.
>
> And for becoming at least marginally on-topic again:
> Assuming
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:51:25PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
> On 2007-11-12, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection
> > of software versions that are all known to work together is very
> &
On 2007-11-12, Eric W. Biederman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection
> of software versions that are all known to work together is very
> interesting, and useful. Making it so you can deliver something that
> just
ernel for those who want or just have a
> new hardware?
>
> * Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the "I don't trust in
> upstream" development model are broken? (And why)
I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection
of software versio
a
new hardware?
* Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the I don't trust in
upstream development model are broken? (And why)
I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection
of software versions that are all known to work together is very
interesting
On 2007-11-12, Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection
of software versions that are all known to work together is very
interesting, and useful. Making it so you can deliver something that
just works to end users
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:51:25PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-11-12, Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection
of software versions that are all known to work together is very
interesting, and useful. Making
On 2007-11-12 16:20 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The problem is not what the distributions ship, the problem is simply
that problems with distribution packaged software should be reported
to the distribution, not upstream.
And for becoming at least marginally on-topic again:
Assuming your
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:51:25PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-11-12, Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding a collection
of software versions that are all known to work together is very
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 06:02:54PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-11-12 16:20 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
The problem is not what the distributions ship, the problem is simply
that problems with distribution packaged software should be reported
to the distribution, not upstream.
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 12:13:41AM +0800, Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 01:51:25PM +, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-11-12, Eric W. Biederman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a megafreeze development model is sane. Finding
On 2007-11-12 17:56 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Yes, by asking immediately
Is this issue still present with $latest_upstream_version?
That's still a user complaining about problems fixed ages ago,
and a couple more who never even bothered complaining, just
decided that the software is crap
On 2007-11-12, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geeks like you and me want the latest software
(I'm using Debian unstable/testing).
But most users want a Linux installation that simply works - and this
includes all software on the system at all times.
I'm not in either category. I want
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 18:14:57 +0100
From: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken?
On Tue, Nov
On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:16:26PM +0200, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-11-12 17:56 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
Yes, by asking immediately
Is this issue still present with $latest_upstream_version?
That's still a user complaining about problems fixed ages ago,
and a couple more who never
Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
But the good thing about open source software is that when you believe
your ideas are better than what current distributions do you can
implement your ideas and create your own distribution.
Haha, the typical FOSS advocate's fallacy. Quote:
“You have the
On 2007-11-12, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Either they are empty transition packages depending on the linux-*
packages or you are not using Debian stable but Debian oldstable (the
latter would be funny in the context of your complaints...).
Well, I'm using two years old 2.6.7
On 2007-11-12, Rogelio M. Serrano Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dont understand. You are supposed to go to jail for looking at closed
source, right? And licenses are very expensive. I could not afford them
when i started out but now i would rather spend the money on other
things like FPGA's.
Adrian Bunk wrote:
The core libc and supporting libraries is the core. and the toolchain
the core dev. Those can be updated twice or even once a year. The kernel
can be updated once a month if you like.
A new release of the Linux kernel has more than half a million lines of
code
On 12.11.2007 17:18, Tuomo Valkonen wrote:
On 2007-11-12, Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Geeks like you and me want the latest software
(I'm using Debian unstable/testing).
But most users want a Linux installation that simply works - and this
includes all software on the system
On 2007-11-13 00:39 +0100, Matthias Schniedermeyer wrote:
That's the problem(tm).
Contrary to Closed Source Software all(!) OSS-Software is
interdependent. There is no Stand-Alone-Software. There is always at
least libc. (Scripts depend on a script-interpreter, which in turn
depends at
ciol wrote:
Chris Snook wrote:
Why are you asking the developers? We do this for the sake of the users.
The kernel is the software of the developers.
The kernel is a technology. A distribution is a product. When decisions about
technology and decisions about products are made
Adrian Bunk wrote:
[...]
Your reasoning makes sense.
But it may be not adapted for applications like apache.
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Chris Snook wrote:
Why are you asking the developers? We do this for the sake of the users.
The kernel is the software of the developers.
It's important to know how they want it to be distributed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
?
* Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the "I don't
trust in upstream" development model are broken? (And why)
Why are you asking the developers? We do this for the sake of the users.
-- Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscri
ciol wrote:
* Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the "I don't
trust in upstream" development model are broken? (And why)
I'm new to LKML, and because this is "my first release" I've held off
saying that the development model scares me. No doubt I nee
ciol wrote:
* Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the I don't
trust in upstream development model are broken? (And why)
I'm new to LKML, and because this is my first release I've held off
saying that the development model scares me. No doubt I need to see it
through
?
* Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the I don't
trust in upstream development model are broken? (And why)
Why are you asking the developers? We do this for the sake of the users.
-- Chris
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel
Adrian Bunk wrote:
[...]
Your reasoning makes sense.
But it may be not adapted for applications like apache.
Thanks.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
Chris Snook wrote:
Why are you asking the developers? We do this for the sake of the users.
The kernel is the software of the developers.
It's important to know how they want it to be distributed.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
ciol wrote:
Chris Snook wrote:
Why are you asking the developers? We do this for the sake of the users.
The kernel is the software of the developers.
The kernel is a technology. A distribution is a product. When decisions about
technology and decisions about products are made
ile providing optionally the latest kernel for those who
> want or just have a new hardware?
>
> * Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the "I don't
> trust in upstream" development model are broken? (And why)
>
>
>
> [1] http://www.modeemi.fi/~
y'd omit it, their custumers would both blame them for
shipping such a buggy distribution and swamp their support with bug
reports.
> * Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the "I don't trust
> in upstream" development model are broken? (And why)
>...
Defi
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:56:57 +0100
ciol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Wouldn't you prefer they ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:56:57 +0100
ciol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Wouldn't you prefer they ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition,
the megafreeze development model [1] and the "I don't
trust in upstream" development model are broken? (And why)
[1] http://www.modeemi.fi/~tuomov/b/archives/2007/03/03/T19_15_26/
(I'm going to ask this for several projects, not only the kernel)
-
To unsubscribe from this
the megafreeze development model [1] and the I don't
trust in upstream development model are broken? (And why)
[1] http://www.modeemi.fi/~tuomov/b/archives/2007/03/03/T19_15_26/
(I'm going to ask this for several projects, not only the kernel)
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:56:57 +0100
ciol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Wouldn't you prefer they ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
--
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not
Rik van Riel wrote:
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 23:56:57 +0100
ciol [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Wouldn't you prefer they ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push_poll
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
kernel for those who
want or just have a new hardware?
* Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the I don't
trust in upstream development model are broken? (And why)
[1] http://www.modeemi.fi/~tuomov/b/archives/2007/03/03/T19_15_26/
(I'm going to ask this for several
distribution and swamp their support with bug
reports.
* Do you think the megafreeze development model [1] and the I don't trust
in upstream development model are broken? (And why)
...
Definitely not.
If your stable base system contains the kernel you lose the hardware
support for recent
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 03:24:00PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> The current development model seems to go much smoother than
> anything I've seen before.
It violates conventional wisdom and that psychological thing is the lion
share of why some people feel uneasy about it.
D
On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 03:24:00PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
The current development model seems to go much smoother than
anything I've seen before.
It violates conventional wisdom and that psychological thing is the lion
share of why some people feel uneasy about it.
Dealing
* Chuck Wolber:
> Has the Linux Kernel reached a point where the majority of developers feel
> that (at least for now) no *MAJOR* "rip it out, stomp on it, burn it and
> start over" parts of the kernel exist any longer?
The IP stack is likely to see some development activity, at leat there
are
mes a bug crops up without anybody knowing exactly
what change introduced it.
The current development model seems to go much smoother than
anything I've seen before.
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleve
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 22:31 -0700, Chuck Wolber wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> For months I have been reading as much as I can about the current
> stable/unstable development model, but still have a question.
>
> Has the Linux Kernel reached a point where the majority
> that (at least for now) no *MAJOR* "rip it out, stomp on it, burn it and
> start over" parts of the kernel exist any longer? In other words, do you
These ideas continue to exist. This is partly due to increasing skills of
developers but also to the changing environment. You'll find literally
that (at least for now) no *MAJOR* rip it out, stomp on it, burn it and
start over parts of the kernel exist any longer? In other words, do you
These ideas continue to exist. This is partly due to increasing skills of
developers but also to the changing environment. You'll find literally
On Mon, 2005-04-18 at 22:31 -0700, Chuck Wolber wrote:
Greetings,
For months I have been reading as much as I can about the current
stable/unstable development model, but still have a question.
Has the Linux Kernel reached a point where the majority of developers feel
that (at least
without anybody knowing exactly
what change introduced it.
The current development model seems to go much smoother than
anything I've seen before.
--
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition
* Chuck Wolber:
Has the Linux Kernel reached a point where the majority of developers feel
that (at least for now) no *MAJOR* rip it out, stomp on it, burn it and
start over parts of the kernel exist any longer?
The IP stack is likely to see some development activity, at leat there
are some
Greetings,
For months I have been reading as much as I can about the current
stable/unstable development model, but still have a question.
Has the Linux Kernel reached a point where the majority of developers feel
that (at least for now) no *MAJOR* "rip it out, stomp on it, burn it and
Greetings,
For months I have been reading as much as I can about the current
stable/unstable development model, but still have a question.
Has the Linux Kernel reached a point where the majority of developers feel
that (at least for now) no *MAJOR* rip it out, stomp on it, burn it and
start
72 matches
Mail list logo
