linux-kernel - Fwd: stable? quality assurance?

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <AANLkTil4cYsEYW9NdNyiebdaYlQnVE3yKBZwLitQyOyC@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 12 Jul 2010 14:35:20 +0200
From:	Marcin Letyns <mletyns@...il.com>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Fwd: stable? quality assurance?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marcin Letyns <mletyns@...il.com>
Date: 2010/7/12
Subject: Re: stable? quality assurance?
To: David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>

2010/7/12 David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>:
>
> I don't know if Ted intended to be snide, but that is how he sounded.  And
> yet, his comment was a fair reflection of how core developers seem to feel
> about stability, namely that a stable kernel is obsolete and therefore not
> particularly desirable.  (I use the word "stable" in it's common English
> meaning, not the almost inexplicable Tux variation.)

What about a bsd variation? Last time I tried freebsd it wasn't
stable. It had problems with my hard drive controler. There are many
regressions introduced in newer releases. I see you don't want Linux
to be developed rapidly (remember your lame slow down please?).

> I think the truth is that linux kernels are only ever stable as released by
> distributions, and then only the more conservative of them.  What comes
> direct from kernel.org, I mean those called "latest stable", are an exercise
> in dissembling.  It's stable because someone calls it stable, even though it
> crashes and has regressions?  That's not stable, that's just misleading.

Show me a "stable" kernel. Windows, *bsd, solaris, os x? There's none.
I've never had problems with the newest mainline kernels, because
they're rock stable and rock solid for me. Why don't go at freebsd.com
and why don't you complain they should stop calling some of the
freebsd releases a stable ones? There are regressions,  crashes, but I
guess it's a *bsd variation of a "stable" term.

> Stable kernels *could* be stable.  Debian succeeds.  If it takes them a long
> time, that is only because the core developers fail to release reasonable
> quality kernels.  Don't sneer at them because they do the right thing; do
> the right thing yourself so that they can produce more timely updates.

While there's Debian with the stable kernel then what the hell do you
want? :> I don't want Debian with its old user space and with the old
kernel. If this is what you want then what are you complaining here
about? You want everyone to choose a Debian's way? Btw. it takes
Debian developers a long time to make a release, mainly because of the
user space...

> I don't expect fair consideration of these comments; why change when
> shooting the messenger is so much more satisfying?

You missed the point, so what do you expect? Btw. slowing down would
be very stupid. If you don't know why, it's because you're missing the
point.

> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/