jhelberg@nl.oracle.com (Joost Helberg) writes:
quoted text
>Stabilizing Linux is not needed: it is far more stable than Unix's
>from 0 to 00.

Possibly.  But is it stable enough?

BTW, with stable I've been talking about a system that doesn't change
every day, or if it does, that it doesn't require the user to update his
system.  I don't mean a system that doesn't change.

quoted text
>Stabilizing Linux's development is not needed too! It means calling the
>rapid development a halt, which is no good.

This is not what I proposed.

quoted text
>What do we need to stabilize?

We need to stabilize a complete usable system, and a few application
programs for it.  This does not need that their development is going to
stop, it means that they need to be released in such a way that user's
can just get them and install them and use them and then not have to do
anything about the system for a while.

quoted text
>This is not disturbing to normal users (the ones with only two fingers
>and two left hands), becaus they do not compile sources etc..

No, they usually don't compile sources, but they definitely do install
things on their computers.  Which, currently for Linux often means
compiling sources.

quoted text
>Our (software people) job is to lead the stream of sources/products to 
>these people/customers and to give them usable products. It is the
>developer/porter who chooses which update come in and which doesn't.


quoted text
>The important things about projects like LINUX are:
>  1) It must be clear what changes are made between releases in order
>     to make the decision to use or not to use the update.
>    
>  2) every new release must be available, totally and if possible in
>     diff, on easy to reach places. Mailservers etc..
>
>  3) backwards compatibility is pretty important, but if performance or
>     functionality is violated, those prevail. e.g. the new extfs differs
>     from the old, so why not implement it as a second seperate file-system,
>     and not supporting the old extfs?

I agree.

quoted text
>Let the worlds software professionals put things together and let them
>sell their skills in stead of selling software!

I agree, although this is a flammatory topic.  (Followups on this part
should be taken to gnu.misc.discuss or something.)

quoted text
> [ software professional installs and administers and updates system
>   for corporate customer ]

That is one scenario.  What about people who want to use Unix at home,
and don't want to pay for a consultant to come and install it?  They can
buy a commercial Unix and install it more or less without pain, why
should Linux be more difficult?  (Note: It reportedly is not that
difficult even as it is.)

--
Lars.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi