arctic Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 Read yourself. Interesting imho. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39267255,00.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 This is what I like about Linux. The fact that a lead developer would even consider halting development to fix bugs is just amazing - and while some people may see this has a bad thing, I think it's actually a very smart move and quite possibly needs to be done more often. I mean, look at Windows, MS would never consider a move such as this - and the bugs just keep piling up! Personally, if I was ever the head of a large development project such as this, I would have a bug-fixing phase (where no code is added unless needed to fix bugs) built into the regular development cycle. I imagine there are projects out there that do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexter11 Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 I mean, look at Windows, MS would never consider a move such as this - and the bugs just keep piling up! That's just not true. Developing and than stopping development and starting bugfixing IS the MS development cycle. Just think about how old is XP. What's new in it since it has been released? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw1974 Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 I certainly think it's a good idea to fix them if they are actually there. This would promote Linux further into being even more stable than it is now. People depend on stability as a strong factor of choice in the Operating System they want. In my opinion anyway :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic Posted May 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 I always prefer a rock-stable and secure kernel over a latest-and-greatest kernel, so I think it is a good move. For those with the latest hardware, it might be a show-stopper. *shrugs* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 I mean, look at Windows, MS would never consider a move such as this - and the bugs just keep piling up! That's just not true. Developing and than stopping development and starting bugfixing IS the MS development cycle. Just think about how old is XP. What's new in it since it has been released? hahaha. MS gives that appearance, yes. What's new? Look at all the added features in SP2. But yet, there are bugs in XP that have been there since it was released. What's MS been doing since XP was released? Working on the constantly delayed Vista, not to mention the server releases (2003). Fixing bugs in a previous release is not something MS does - the only thing they care to fix are security holes, and even those fixes take forever to get released. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffi Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 [What's MS been doing since XP was released? Working on the constantly delayed Vista, not to mention the server releases (2003). Vista has been delayed so may times because MS wants to release version with as few bugs as possible, I am sure they could have released Vista months ago and most peope would be very happy using it. They have made a mistake with XP and they know it and are not going to let it happen again.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted May 7, 2006 Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 Vista has been delayed so may times because MS wants to release version with as few bugs as possible, I am sure they could have released Vista months ago and most peope would be very happy using it. They have made a mistake with XP and they know it and are not going to let it happen again.... I don't mean to be mean or anything, but, that just isn't true. Vista hasn't been released yet because MS can't decide what features it will or won't have - and when they do decide on a feature, they can't get it to work. I tested a Vista beta in January, believe me, there was no way they could have released it "months ago and most peope would have be very happy using it". And just a note of interest, Vista requires 8GB of HD space for the base install. That's just pure insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic Posted May 7, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2006 Sorry, but Vista is a single mistake in itself, from start to finish. And don't expect Vista to be more stable than XP. It won't from what I read so far from Microsoft certified testers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphitus Posted May 8, 2006 Report Share Posted May 8, 2006 I hate the way the news sites have taken this story and run with it. They've been talking as if the Linux kernel has been degrading severely and unnoticed over time, which isnt really the case. I do think it's great that APKM would consider proposing pausing development for a bug fixing release. and imho, doing that once in a while, every 5 or 10 releases, pause and just allow bugfixes and updates. James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted May 8, 2006 Report Share Posted May 8, 2006 [What's MS been doing since XP was released? Working on the constantly delayed Vista, not to mention the server releases (2003). Vista has been delayed so may times because MS wants to release version with as few bugs as possible, I am sure they could have released Vista months ago and most peope would be very happy using it. They have made a mistake with XP and they know it and are not going to let it happen again.... Its mostly irrelevant... Erm 95 was delayed then 98 then 2000 and then XP and they were all released buggy. If you throw in major errors like ME and 98SE then the development/bug fixing speaks for itself. Each release has promised to fix the previous and has failed so why should Vista should be any different ? MS claimed not to be able to put the source together for XP when they were asked to provide it... if we take a generous view then they are telling the truth and thier development is so split they can't ... There is a fundamental difference between Linux where the core kernel is well known and built upon and WinX where the core code is unknown, even to insider developers which add bugs outside of the core kernel itself but in applications with access direct. The windows model adds apps against an API and dev kits sorta tagged on the side whereas linux makes them against the kernel... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlc Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 I always prefer a rock-stable and secure kernel over a latest-and-greatest kernel rock-stable and secure kernel, click me....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphitus Posted May 12, 2006 Report Share Posted May 12, 2006 I always prefer a rock-stable and secure kernel over a latest-and-greatest kernel, so I think it is a good move. For those with the latest hardware, it might be a show-stopper. *shrugs* That's the thing, latest kernels are more secure. Most of the time, you wouldnt be getting all the security updates that they contain. And really, take a look at the kernel in mandriva, a year ago, it was latest and greatest too. From what I remember when I was using mandrake, they didnt actively backport updates and fixes very much at all. For a majority of people, the latest kernel, will be rock stable. Bugs doesnt mean crashes for everybody. I havn't had any stability issues recently or for a long time in any of the kernels I have tried, and I have relatively modern hardware. James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.