Subject: Re: Resource needs
To: Johnny Billquist <bqt@Update.UU.SE>
From: Chris Wareham <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/02/2005 17:25:32
Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Chris Wareham wrote:
>>Linux 2.4.x would be a fair comparison for the kernel in NetBSD 2.0. If
>>I'd suggest that Linux 2.6.x should be compared to the kernel in NetBSD
>>-current, as they're both unstable development versions.
> Really? I thought Linux used odd numbers for unstable development, and
> even number for stable releases? But I might be confused...
That was true until 2.6.0, which was released when it was known to be
beta quality at best. I got a definite feeling that it was a case of
releasing it while it was in a reasonably good shape, rather than having
endless rounds of pre-releases.
Since 2.6.0, Linus Torvalds has held off branching 2.7.x as the next
unstable series. His attitude is that Linux distributors are now doing a
good job of stabilising and releasing vendor versions of the "vanilla"
One is not superior merely because one sees the world as odious.