ru.linux

 
 - RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 From : Sergey Lentsov                       2:4615/71.10   22 Nov 2001  17:11:54
 To : All
 Subject : URL: http://www.lwn.net/2001/1122/letters.php3
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 

    [1][LWN Logo] 
    
                                [2]Click Here 
    [LWN.net]
    
    Sections:
     [3]Main page
     [4]Security
     [5]Kernel
     [6]Distributions
     [7]Development
     [8]Commerce
     [9]Linux in the news
     [10]Announcements
     [11]Linux History
     Letters
    [12]All in one big page
    
    See also: [13]last week's Letters page.
    
 Letters to the editor
 
    Letters to the editor should be sent to [14]letters@lwn.net.
    Preference will be given to letters which are short, to the point, and
    well written. If you want your email address "anti-spammed" in some
    way please be sure to let us know. We do not have a policy against
    anonymous letters, but we will be reluctant to include them.
    November 22, 2001
    
    
 From:    Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@online.fr>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Date:    Thu, 15 Nov 2001 11:06:54 +0100
 
 Dear LWN,
 This is with reference to your editorial this week (Nov 15), where
 you talk about the problem of a long stabilisation period for the 2.4
 kernel and a lack of a development branch, and suggest the Debian
 model where releases happen more slowly but are more stable, while
 the unstable branch continues.
 
 It seems to me that the BSDs, all of them, have got this right.  They
 make stable releases frequently  (much more rapidly than Debian),
 while continuing work on the development branch.  Although I started
 with using linux and still read lwn regularly, I now use FreeBSD
 almost exclusively; it seems quite competitive with linux for new
 features, hardware support, etc while being extremely stable and,
 reportedly, often having much better performance even today.  (It's
 hard to tell on a desktop machine, though.)  While the release date of
 FreeBSD 5.0 was pushed far into the future because of its ambitious
 agenda, new features get backported to the 4.x branch regularly, after
 first being thoroughly tested in the 5.x branch.
 
 I'm not a developer myself, but the evidence suggests that this system
 works (and works very well).  Though FreeBSD's first (dot-zero) stable
 releases are often marked for early adopters, 4.0 in fact was already
 good enough for general production use, which is more than can be said
 even for linux 2.4.9 (or for 2.2.x for x<7 or so).  In fact, one
 usually comes to no harm when syncing one's sources to just about any
 point on the -stable branch.  It's even more impressive when you
 consider that the BSDs maintain the entire base userland -- libraries,
 utilities, and all -- apart from the kernel.  Surely such a system
 could work for linux too?  Perhaps the major factor here is the
 cvs-based approach of the BSDs, which Linus dislikes so much.
 
 Rahul
 
    
 From:    nn@broadcom.com
 To:      lwn@lwn.net
 Subject: The 2.5 kernel is coming
 Date:    Wed, 14 Nov 2001 21:37:23 -0800
 
 > Many kernel developers have had no target for new code in a year.
 
 A kernel should not be a dumping ground for every feature
 that an undergraduate might consider.  The job of a kernel
 is to provide some simple layers of abstraction over the
 underlying hardware and get out of the way.
 A kernel should be a pencil, not a word processor.
 
 > The 2.4 kernel has been a very long time in stabilizing.
 
 Which is not surprising considering the huge amount of SMP
 and NUMA big iron feature and algorithm complexity that
 has been applied over the past two years.
 Plus a new VM.
 
 neal nuckolls
 nn@techie.com
 
    
 From:    ketil@ii.uib.no
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Microsoft's "threat"
 Date:    Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:10:53 +0100 (MET)
 
 In his (as usual) very good article, Bruce Schneier wonders:
 
 > What [Culp] did was to rail against the publication of vulnerabilities,
 > and ask researchers to keep details under their hats. Otherwise, he
 > threatened, "vendors will have no choice but to find other ways to
 > protect their customers," whatever that means.
 
 I cannot help but think that the most obvious "other way" is to actually
 fix the bugs.  Some threat.
 
 -kzm
 
    
 From:    Mark Bainter <mark-spamx@firinn.org>
 To:      letters@lwn.net
 Subject: Re: bug reporting in noncommercial software
 Date:    Thu, 15 Nov 2001 10:18:32 -0600
 
 I would have to agree with Seth's assessment of the situation.
 It takes someone really dedicated to take the time and write
 a usefull bug report.  I don't think any automated system can
 replace that.  But, I do agree that an automated system could
 help to eliminate a lot of the smaller bugs that often go
 unnoticed because it isn't worth the time and effort to report
 it.
 
 I would propose an alternate solution however.  Instead of having
 a standard system for doing bug reporting, (i.e. one app that
 handles it for all apps) I would suggest having the standard be
 some permutation of the applications name + bug.  For example
 vimbug, or etermbug.  These would be provided by the application
 writers to gather relevant data about the system and compose an
 email message for the reporting person to then puruse, edit,
 and submit along with a description of the problem.
 
 The reason I suggest this instead is that each app is different.
 Vim doesn't generally need to know what version of window manager
 you are running, or even which one you are running.  Eterm doesn't
 care what version of modutils you are using.  Let the developers
 decide what information is most usefull and have it gather all that
 background data, so all the user has to do is make sure they are
 ok with the information being submitted, and add in the actual
 description of the problem.
 
 --
 
    
    
                                                                          
    
    [15]Eklektix, Inc. Linux powered! Copyright Л 2001 [16]Eklektix, Inc.,
    all rights reserved
    Linux (R) is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
 
 References
 
    1. http://lwn.net/
    2. http://ads.tucows.com/click.ng/pageid=pageid=132-000-001-001
    3. http://lwn.net/2001/1122/
    4. http://lwn.net/2001/1122/security.php3
    5. http://lwn.net/2001/1122/kernel.php3
    6. http://lwn.net/2001/1122/dists.php3
    7. http://lwn.net/2001/1122/devel.php3
    8. http://lwn.net/2001/1122/commerce.php3
    9. http://lwn.net/2001/1122/press.php3
   10. http://lwn.net/2001/1122/announce.php3
   11. http://lwn.net/2001/1122/history.php3
   12. http://lwn.net/2001/1122/bigpage.php3
   13. http://lwn.net/2001/1115/letters.php3
   14. mailto:letters@lwn.net
   15. http://www.eklektix.com/
   16. http://www.eklektix.com/
 
 --- ifmail v.2.14.os7-aks1
  * Origin: Unknown (2:4615/71.10@fidonet)
 
 

Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты  уменьшение даты  тема  автор