> That's all wonderful in an idealistic world, but the fact remains > that it is because of all of its merits that it's being used in > 'mission critical' places. In those places it is often easier for > admins to keep up with the stable kernel rather than its changelog. > It just seems that these things shouldn't be happening in a *stable* > kernel series. Just my 2 cents. If anyone disagrees with this to a > point of flaming me, feel free to do so off the list. Its a great debate but who does everyone expect to do the testing? In this model the early adopters are the testers. Linus only tests code for _his_ machine if he compiles it at all. What happened is obviously an accident but before people complain they should download, test, report and offer something productive or simply don't complain. If someone doesn't like the way the branch is maintained fork. Complaining and not downloading the most recent releases is probably the most unproductive thing a person could do. The money in open source lies with the administrators and consultants. Now if Red Hat had released this then there would be a place to complain. My original post wasn't directed at you in particular. I meant it more for the common slashdot idiot -- its just easier to hold a _productive_ debate on this channel. -- Marc A. Ohmann Digital Solutions, Inc http://ds6.net marc at ds6.net