> > exactly. good there are people who see that.
> >  
> > new kernels developing (2.4.*) are much sponsored by redhat.
> 
> The kernel is directed by people like Linus and the (effectively) core
> team, not Red Hat.

teoretically. 
 
> The push for the direction of the Linux kernel comes from a great many
> directions. It's driven by what people want to do with it. The main
> thing I've seen Red Hat and other similar entities doing is talking
> about the changes it needs for greater reliability and features in
> enterprise computing.
> 
> That's not really a bad thing.
> 
this is theory and what they say.

please try 2.4.* kernels and/or default redhat instalation and you will
see what i'm talking about.
not the most imporant in their development is "NEW!!!! NEW!!! NEW
TECHNOLOGY!!! NOW MORE WINDOWS-LIKE interface!!!" etc.

> Most of the bloat is coming from oddball PC hardware, and the desire for
> desktop features.
> 
> Once you get something like Gnome sitting on top, the OS disappears in
> the noise anyway.  Now _that_ is a pig...

yes.
 
> > effects - easy to see (kernel bloat and bugs)
> 
> root@escape:/usr/src
> 2 % du -sck sys
> 110405  sys
> 110405  total
> 
> root@escape:/usr/src
> 3 % ls -l /netbsd
> -rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wheel  2620490 May 25 16:22 /netbsd
> 
> NetBSD isn't exactly lightweight itself.

-rwxr-xr-x  1 root  wsrc  1674200 Jun  1 10:45 /netbsd

with linux it's similar - just linux kernels are compressed and LKM are
more used.

> No comment on the bugs... :)

it's more important.

> I actually feel pretty good about Linux and *BSD, given what I have
> heard about the size of Windows NT.

look and win2000 ;)

anyway - i need STABLE system. not just "more stable than windoze"