linux-kernel - Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706291227040.1395@mtl.rackplans.net>
Date:	Fri, 29 Jun 2007 12:37:47 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Gerhard Mack <gmack@...erfire.net>
To:	Zoltán HUBERT <zoltan.hubert@...ero.com>
cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Please release a stable kernel Linux 3.0

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007, Zoltán HUBERT wrote:

> I don't remember how it was during 2.4 and before, but I 
> find it very suspicious that SuSE and RedHat only provide 
> 2.6.10 and 2.6.9 for their OS. It looks as if THEY didn't 
> trust 2.6.x to be a replacement to 2.6.y
> 
> And as I understand it, this is (was ?) the whole point of 
> stable/development kernels. "We" can trust a newer stable 
> kernel to be a drop-in replacement for an older stable 
> kernel (from the same series), while development kernels 
> need time to stabilize with the new whizz-bang-pfouit stuff 
> that you all so nicely add. 
> 
> Are the good ol' days lost in nostalgia ?

Lost? maybe.  Improved on, defiantly so it's loss isn't a bad thing.

The 2.4/2.5 split was, as far as I recall, a mess.  2.5 had too many 
changes to stabilize in any reasonable amount of time and 2.4 then needed 
new drivers and features to keep it from becoming obsolete.  Back porting 
drivers without the needed infrastructure resulted in instabilities in 
the 2.4 branch.

I recall one time where I needed a certain raid device working and not a 
single kernel had that driver working properly.  2.4.x oopsed in the 
driver after random intervals and the 2.5 kernel crashed in other places.

Now development is broken into smaller stages that are easier to debug and 
made stable in shorter time.  If I just need to update a kernel and don't 
need any new features and drivers I can just update to the next point 
release and I know it won't break anything.  If I want new features I can 
update to the latest stable branch or the latest pre release but either 
way my stuff is more likely to work than I did back in the 2.5 days.

I think people who keep demanding a return to the old development system 
forget how badly it sucked in the first place.

	Gerhard

--
Gerhard Mack

gmack@...erfire.net

<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.