From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
   Date: 18 Aug 92 13:51:35 GMT

     At the risk of sounding as if I'm complaining, I think the "phase
   errors" betweeen the ps, kernel, and gcc packages is getting to be
   enough hassle that the various maintainers should get together and agree
   on something and stick to it. Evertime a new version of one comes out,
   it seems to be a huge hassle getting it to work with the other two.

Don't take the newest version then!  Stick with 0.96c, and don't take a
new version until it's become fully stable.  After all, that's what
happens when you shell out megabucks for commercial software --- you
only get releases once every six months to every few years.  If you took
0.96c, and didn't upgrade to 0.97, or 0.97pl1, you'd have a perfectly
stable system.  I suggest that those people who are complaining take
either the MCC release, or the SLS release --- AND THEN NOT UPGRADE.

What you're seeing is the nature of distributed development, and it's
what has allowed Linux to grow so fast.  The main feature/problem is
that the kernel is continuing to evolve, and it is continuing to gain
new features and its internals have been revamped to make it be
stronger, better, faster, etc, etc.

Asking Linus, et. al to "stick to it" would mean freezing kernel
development.  It would mean abandoning new changes to eliminate the 64
process limit, and to make V86 emulation mode simpler to implement.  
That would be a Bad Thing.

                                                        - Ted

P.S.  Just for the record, my personal system at home was at 0.95 long
after the 0.96[abc] releases were out.  I was busy doing other things,
and I didn't see the point in upgrading to one of the more recent
releases.  Since I wasn't doing active kernel development at the time,
it didn't make a difference.  If you want stability and a production
system, don't live on the bleeding edge.....