> Most of the stuff in the Linux kernel (and Userland) is marked as
> "Version 0.1. 0.7beta. alpha-release. 0.2.1testing. 1.2-pre". And so
> on. You won't find many OpenSource developers that call their product
> "Version 3.1" Because they're afraid to bite the bullet a do a
> release.
Probably you'd like RH version numbering scheme more?
Do you think there is a big difference between, say, RH or Mandrake 9,
and Debian 3 (not sure about exact numbers)?
> With a commercial OS, you get a release version on which you
> can build. Sure it has bugs. Sure, some of the code _is_ alpha
> quality. But that's what a vendor is for.
A vendor is for releasing alpha quality code? Well...
> No it does not. It simply has no political or ideological reasons not
> to talk to other companies, sign NDAs and spend money. If Sun wants a
> "state of the art" driver for nVidia chips, they call nVidia, draft up
> an agreement, get access to the nVidia docs and build such a
> driver. The main problem of the "open-source" movement is that
> "beggars" attitute. If it costs money, we won't use it.
Not the money is the problem. I don't think the documentation costs
(much) money anyway. The NDA is the problem - why would you want
documentation if it prohibits you from releasing your (source) code?
> Check the level of support of _current_ graphics chips in Linux. You
> get a halfway decent ATI support, "bad, bad, bad closed source" but
> performance-wise very good nVidia support
Never worked for me reliably.
My experience is that under Linux no binary-only kernel modules work
reliably. Not that it's much different with (the) other OSes.
-- Krzysztof Halasa Network Administrator - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/