In article <1992Aug6.125441.22427@klaava.Helsinki.FI>, wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius) writes:
|> Kenneth Falck raises the question of whether Linux should
|> stabilize a bit when 1.0 is released.  The same concern has been
|> raised by others earlier, as well.  (Another related question is
|> what exactly 1.0 should include, but I shan't go into that very
|> much, I'm currently more interested in more general qualities.)
        [stuff deleted]
|> 
|> This article is already too long, but I will summarize the major
|> points:
|> 
|> -    non-hackers need stability and ease of use
|> -    hackers want a lot continuous, exciting development
|> -    we can have both, if we create one stable official release
|>      which contains "everything" every six months, and have a
|>      lot of "testing" or "unofficial" versions that non-hackers
|>      are discouraged from using
|> 
|> So what do you think, is this the way to go?
|> 
|> --
|> Lars.Wirzenius@helsinki.fi

I believe that it is a good thing to stabilize linux.  There is one issue which
Lars has not mentioned which is critical.  If a large non-technical user
community should decide to adopt linux as it's O/S then you need to worry about
backward compatability.  This will tend to take the fun out of design and
implementation.  The linux group needs to consider that issue.

Another thing that might be nice is if linux had a remote revision control
mechanism.  If I had a whole bunch of linux machines on a network, I could
have a linux remote revision control tool distribute and install updates,
rather than manually performing a remote login and system administration.

Just a couple of thoughts

Bill
-- 
|
|       maniattb@cs.rpi.edu - in real life Bill Maniatty
|