| |||||||||||||
The embedded Linux nightmare - an epilogueThe embedded Linux nightmare - an epiloguePosted May 3, 2007 1:14 UTC (Thu) by bene42 (subscriber, #32623)In reply to: The embedded Linux nightmare - an epilogue by roelofs Parent article: The embedded Linux nightmare - an epilogue
> Ten iterations of review/revise before acceptance into the mainline kernel is nothing compared to that level of brutality. :-(
But we have to show the "kernel" way is the cheapest way. And every QA, exept the SM ones, is on our side. For a diligent QA is it easier to accept a new stable kernel version, then a ton of backports. They do the same tests on each kernel, so the difference is one question: What backing?
(Log in to post comments)
The embedded Linux nightmare - an epilogue Posted May 3, 2007 4:19 UTC (Thu) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link] But we have to show the "kernel" way is the cheapest way.Oh, I get that, and I'm grateful for articles like this one and its predecessor--it should be an excellent tool to help embedded engineers (who are often favorably inclined toward FLOSS in the first place) convince their management chains to work in a more community-compatible way. I was just pointing out that one of Thomas's arguments was maybe not quite as strong as it might appear at first glance; sometimes there are good reasons for sticking with an older kernel for an extended period. Also note that not all architectures get as much developer attention as i386 and x86_64, nor are they all as unified. Greg
|
|||||||||||||