Article Tone
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| kcarr Dec 06, 2004 10:45 AM EDT |
The tone of the article seems to be against Linux. Personally, I like the development cycle. It helps get things out and tested a little faster. It at least lets you see if it breaks on peoples computer. I guess we could go over to the Microsoft Solutions Framework. Yeah, um, that'd help, right. Linus could start by saying that 2.8 will be out in 6 months, no wait it's now 12 months, no wait.... |
| sbergman27 Dec 06, 2004 11:04 AM EDT |
> Linus could start by saying that 2.8 will be out in 6 months, no wait it's now 12 months, no wait.... Indeed, that is exactly what used to happen. I remember shortly after the Mindcraft benchmarks, Linus, speaking at a convention, mentioned that he had decided that instead of a long development cycle leading to a 3.0 release, he would do a 2.4. The impression he gave was that it would be a quick thing to address the issues that the benchmark had raised. I believe he said that it might be ready by fall, which would be about 6 months. It didn't happen. 1.5 years later (or was it 2.5 years?) the new kernel was released. I really like the current model. 1.5 - 2.5 years is just too much latency and involves huge efforts all around to forward and back port features and maintain 2 kernels. Plus you end up with vendors (quite understandably) creating their own hybrid kernels which is not a good thing. Much duplication of effort. I do like the idea of 2.6.x.x releases, though. But a roadmap? Useless. |
| devnet Dec 06, 2004 3:44 PM EDT |
Useless indeed! Especially considering the task they'd have roadmapping thousands of 'employees' development all at once. I'd like to see the project managment for that one. With closed source proprietary, they'd have only a certain number of hands in the cookie jar...hence the roadmaps. I'd say that putting a roadmap on an open source project is like putting an elevator in an outhouse....just not needed. devnet |
| TxtEdMacs Dec 06, 2004 5:04 PM EDT |
devnet: I think you are missing the point: an elevator on an outhouse would raise the esteem of the product stream, at the very least. You could say it raises the status of those involved. |
| peragrin Dec 07, 2004 4:04 AM EDT |
TxtEdMacs: All an elevator in an outhouse does is make the sh!t fall farther before it stops. You also risk the sh!t hitting someone else on the way down. |
| TxtEdMacs Dec 07, 2004 3:00 PM EDT |
peragrin: Depends how you look at it; you could say it's one perspective. Just a bit of advice: don't look up! Just peak a bit from under your plastic covering or use the temporarily clear window in your umbrela. Oh, the smell of it!!!! |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!