Hi, Ulrich Teichert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What we've seen here is classic bitrot, IMHO. Of course, the main Linux > development platform is x86 and quite a lot kernel developers only work > on one platform. This has introduced bugs for all other ports (and will > continue to do so), which I can understand. Just look at the amount of > patches between 2.6.21 and 2.6.22. Sure, a huge amount of work is being done in between versions, but that new "stable" releases introduce such significant regressions strikes me as a questionable release policy. Of course, developing an OS kernel is a hard task, especially when so many architectures have to be supported, but still. Anyway, I just discovered the Linux Test Project: http://ltp.sourceforge.net/ I guess we, users of those "non economically valuable" architectures, should commit to run LTP every once in a while on latest kernels and report any problems. That might be an improvement given that kernel developers do not seem to run it. > I'm not following NetBSD so closely, so please correct me when something > I write isn't true, but I am under the impression that NetBSD has not > got that much devoted kernel hackers as Linux. As a result, the process > of bitrotting is slower with NetBSD. But NetBSD has a totally different > approach to ports as Linux, just because the motives behind NetBSD are > different. And maybe these reasons will suite [EMAIL PROTECTED] better, > I don't know. Disclaimer: I'm not familiar with NetBSD either, I've never used it actually. I just quickly browsed the web site and mailing list archives, which gave me the impression that when they claim that platform X is supported, it is indeed supported. Nevertheless, you might be right in that bitrotting is just slower on NetBSD than on Linux, it's hard to tell. Thanks, Ludovic. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
