It seems to me that he's not missing it by much. Although I would prefer a
stable API it looks like this is a matter of priorities. If you prefer
stability and longevity, you choose RHEL or Debian and stick with their
kernels. RHEL 4 supported 2.6.9 for 4 years.
> Oh, yes, the commercial distributions are trying to maintain a stable
> kernel for some time (although far from 15 years) - of course they
> would; this is what the vast majority of businesses and users really
> want and need regardless of what the stupid document
> "stable_api_nonsense.txt" says. Alas, it is actually causing further
> incompatibilities and problems between distributions - everybody has
> a different version, with different patches, etc. It is a nightmare.
You pointed out (several times) that you are speaking from the developers
standpoint. But here you base your argument on a claim that _businesses_
and _users_ want a stable API. It's the ABI they (well, me at least) care
You can't have rapid development _and_ a stable API in a single product.
If you think this is possible I would very much like to hear about The Way
To Do This.
Another thing here that sticks in my eye, and I see that I'm not the only
one, is the allusion that Microsoft offers support for it's kernel for 15
years. IMO nobody there has touched the NT4 kernel for quite a while and
would be greatly surprised if the NT5 family had any recent updates. They
are only stable by virtue of being old.