Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752082AbXKLOfV (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:35:21 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750801AbXKLOfI (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:35:08 -0500 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:33695 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750836AbXKLOfG (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:35:06 -0500 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Tuomo Valkonen Subject: Re: [poll] Is the megafreeze development model broken? Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 13:51:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: jolt.modeemi.cs.tut.fi User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.1pl1 (Debian) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1931 Lines: 31 On 2007-11-12, Eric W. Biederman 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 is always interesting. The distros only do that for the most important and most popular packages, most of which have become rather "generic" and faceless behemots in the sense that they do not have definite authors and so on, and for which it takes years to respond to bug reports in any case (if someone even bothers to enter the bug in registration-required Suckzilla, Debian's reportbug becoming much more usable in this case, even though it typically takes another year for the package maintainer to report things back upstream, if it ever even happens). Other more marginal software with a face, the distros just throw in and expect the author to deal with users having problems with ancient development snapshots and even bugs in stable versions that the distros simply refuse to fix. They should not distribute that kind of software at all. That is, distros should stick to providing stable base systems, and fully supported (and renamed if not generic) customised versions of other software for their target audience. For the rest, there should be better mechanisms for authors to distribute binary or otherwise easily and reliably installable packages of their software. Closed-source operating systems are more decentralised than Linux, where the par^W^W a few big distros have de facto central control over the software that users can conveniently install. -- Tuomo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/