On Nov 26, 2007 2:31 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On the user side it is - otherwise you can't come close to posix or any > other standard that applications are developed to. You're arguments are a wasteland of shifting sands. POSIX complaince is one thing. A stable ABI that hardware drivers can rely on is quite another. If all you cared about was POSIX compliance and how "user space" interacted with the kernel the version rev of the kernel you ran wouldn't matter at all. I'm still left wondering what your actual complaint is. It's clearly not what the other poster has suggested you meant... you clearly dont care about wmware or other binary modules..or if you do you have no idea what the fundamental issues associated with such things are as it relates to kernel development. In any event, you are being extremely unclear as to why the fedora kernels are a problem for you specifically. > > >> It doesn't have to keep changing to do that, particularly on hardware > >> that doesn't change, although it does need security/bugfix updates. The > >> concepts of open()/read()/write()/ioctl() never change. Applications, on > >> the other hand, are always being improved. > > > > Are you calling the development that the upstream kernel developers > > do... not improvements? I think you just insulted the upstream kernel > > developers. > > They are improvements to whatever extent they enable new hardware to be > used, but that is very much irrelevant on an existing, working box. Naive.. very naive. I would encourage you to pay closer attention to upstream work on the kernel. It would be instructive. > Isn't it more of an insult to say that yesterday's kernel isn't > usable? Just as insulting to say that yesterday's OpenOffice isnt usable. I'm not the one arguing that i need an older kernel with a newer application space... you are. If you can live with yesterday's kernel you can certainly live with yesterday's applications. I am arguing that Fedora as a project attempts to treat ALL the components equally and makes an integrated experience that takes the latest bits and drive development forward while working as closely with the upstream development as possible... from the kernel upward into the stack. Suggesting that its perfectly okay to freeze the kernel over the usable lifetime of a computer system clearly demonstrates that you do not comprehend how active kernel development. I'm really not sure there's much more I can say constructively on the matter. And since I'm not being paid by the word to be on this list (unlike you clearly) then I just say good day to you and good luck. -jef
