Slashdot Log In
MySQL Quietly Drops Support For Debian Linux [UPDATED]
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Dec 13, 2006 10:35 AM
from the any-color-as-long-as-it's-black dept.
from the any-color-as-long-as-it's-black dept.
volts writes "MySQL quietly deprecated support for most Linux distributions on October 16, when its 'MySQL Network' support plan was replaced by 'MySQL Enterprise.' MySQL now supports only two Linux distributions — Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. We learned of this when MySQL declined to sell us support for some new Debian-based servers. Our sales rep 'found out from engineering that the current Enterprise offering is no longer supported on Debian OS.' We were told that 'Generic Linux' in MySQL's list of supported platforms means 'generic versions of the implementations listed above'; not support for Linux in general." Update: 12/13 20:52 GMT by J : MySQL AB's Director of Architecture (and former Slash programmer) Brian Aker corrects an apparent miscommunication in a blog post: "we are just starting to roll out [Enterprise] binaries... We don't build binaries for Debian in part because the Debian community does a good job themselves... If you call MySQL and you have support we support you if you are running Debian (the same with Suse, RHEL, Fedora, Ubuntu and others)... someone in Sales was left with the wrong information"
Related Stories
[+]
PostgreSQL vs. MySQL comparison 390 comments
prostoalex writes "Ever find yourself wondering which open source database is the best tool for the job? Well, wonder no more, and let your tax dollars do the work in the form of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory publishing this unbiased review of MySQL vs. PostgreSQL. After reading it, however, it seems that MySQL ranks the same or better on most of the accounts." My poor sleepy eyes misread the date of posting on here; caveat that this is more then 15 months old.
[+]
Ian Murdock: Debian "Missing a Big Opportunity" 330 comments
Natester writes "While Debian struggles to get its next release (Etch) out the door, the project's founder, Ian Murdock, has spoken out about politics, the lack of firm leadership, and Ubuntu's meteoric rise in prominence. Murdock believes that Debian is "process run amok" — nobody feels empowered to make decisions, leading to the sluggish rate of progress."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
MySQL Quietly Drops Support For Debian Linux [UPDATED]
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 339 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Oh well (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh well (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday April 19 2007, @10:15PM)
Re:Oh well (Score:4, Insightful)
Is MySQL "enterprise-level" nowadays ? Every time there's been a story about databases, people have told horror stories about MySQL quietly corrupting data in database.
And just what does "enterprise-level" mean, anyway ? Scales to infinity ? Reliable ? Costly ? Doesn't get the IT manager fired when the CEO find out he bought it ?-)
Re:QUIETLY? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.lpcollier.net/vitalsigns)
I think the point is that they haven't made it clear, even on their website [mysql.com] that they have made a business decision to ignore everything but Red Hat and Suse. From the story: "We learned of this when MySQL declined to sell us support for some new Debian-based servers. Our sales rep 'found out from engineering that the current Enterprise offering is no longer supported on Debian OS.'". So a company got bitten by using a generic (Debian) Linux then asking for support and finding out that "generic" means anything but.
They really should make some sort of statement, even if it's market spun, e.g. "...for the benefit of our enterprise customers we are concentrating on supporting the two most popular commercial distributions... we expect third-party support companies and the active MySQL community to continue supporting less popular and non-commercial distributions". (P.S. for the benefit of anyone flicking through, I made that up!)
Those mother... (Score:3, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday March 23 2004, @07:55PM)
Bit misleading (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bit misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.interlingua.com/)
For medium and large companies (which are the only entities that would buy support to begin with), that difference is purely academic. If it isn't supported, it isn't worth running.
Re:Bit misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://tsfraser.googlepages.com/index.html)
Re:Bit misleading (Score:5, Informative)
(http://modir.stumbleupon.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 05 2003, @01:19PM)
Will you support MySQL Binaries built by third-party vendors? No.
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/supportpolicie
The person who wrote this article wanted to take the binaries provided by Debian. And this doesn't work. But if you take the binaries from MySQL you should still get support.
Re:Bit misleading (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.dsbscience.com/)
Point of clarification: places have RH because they offer support to their enterprise product. Debian's reputation for stability and such is pretty strong, but that only carries so far in the business setting. It's not reputation that drives RH over Deb to the enterprise...it's "I can pay YOU to fix it when it's broke." JMO.
Re:Bit misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 19 2002, @10:25AM)
Wow... this is the beginning of the end (Score:2)
(http://agileartisans.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday June 18 2005, @08:11AM)
I guess it time to dig in and learn another tool to replace it.
Solution (Score:5, Informative)
PostgreSQL [postgresql.org]
Firebird [firebirdsql.org]
Still, Debian provides good MySQL packages. Use them instead. If you need support, I'm sure you could find someone to provide it for you.
Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.earlconsult.com/)
going to get to first base unless it's a screw-up of epic proportions. Even then, it's more likely to
be a colossal waste of your time and merely an exercise of fattening your lawyer's wallet.
Re:Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
really?
seriously?
hahahahahahaha
What your support contract buys you is the ability to call someone on the phone. If it makes your boss happy to have someone to call and yell at when shit breaks, well, ok.
Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.dyndns.org/)
Re:Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
If that were true then MSFT wouldn't have any money at all as they would be responsible for billions in lost sales annually. Just one Virus through one product line(not even windows but MS SQL) a year would be expensive. Yet MSFT doesn't have to pay so why would Mysql, or IBM, or any other software company for lost sales or data?
Generic, huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://honeypot.net/ | Last Journal: Friday April 07 2006, @09:33AM)
I guess that's fair - my company migrated to supporting only "generic Red Hat Database", aka PostgreSQL.
Seriously, except in cases where you have no choice about database availability, I can't see a single reason to use MySQL these days. All of their cool features are owned by their competitors, and they're starting to pull desperate financing tricks like whittling away tech support and partnering with SCO. Are people still using it for new deployments, and if so, why?
Re:Generic, huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.gemstate.net/friends | Last Journal: Tuesday September 11, @10:32AM)
Up to and including Slashcode.
It is now catch 22. Everybody uses MySQL because everyone uses MySQL.
Heck I use MySQL for our CMS because not every module supports PostgreSQL.
I would much rather use PostgreSQL for everything but I don't have time to re-invent the wheel.
Oh well (Score:3, Informative)
(http://dugger.notsoevil.net/)
And yet... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://upt.org/lane)
I know where I'll not be spending my IT budget next year.
Fork or Spoon (Score:5, Funny)
MySQL only lets me spoon it.
But Postgre lets me fork it all night long.
Get Ready... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.kickthebobo.com/erotech/index.html | Last Journal: Friday October 26, @11:51AM)
Forking won't necessarily do anything (Score:5, Insightful)
All of my servers run Debian (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://www.daduh.org/ | Last Journal: Friday July 20, @11:20AM)
Re:All of my servers run Debian (Score:5, Insightful)
Why fork it? (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Wednesday August 18 2004, @05:22PM)
I don't see this as a technical deficiency of the software. This is a business issue.
Do you have Debian and MySQL expertise? Find yourself someone business-savvy (hint: it's probably not you) and sell support for MySQL on Debian. Be your own boss (hint: make sure your business-savvy person isn't a PHB). I think MySQL AB has been pretty clear in the past that they are but a small (if central) part of the MySQL ecosystem, and they clearly want to focus on their high-margin customers. Might be a smart move, might not, but it sure opens the door to players who want to seize the other niches.
Sounds like a business plan waiting to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing that really happened is that MySQL cleaved off a part of their business and gave it away for free to anyone who wants it. And I'll bet plenty of people do.
Linux (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday September 22 2004, @11:13AM)
Isn't "Linux" "generic" almost by definition. The only differences between packages are choices and package manager and usually only a few homegrown eye candy pieces.
No really, I'm not trolling. I'm serious. I've used all sorts of different "distros", Redhat, SuSE, Debian, Slackware etc and I am able to quickly move between them because at the core of it, its all but the same. And I'm not a Linux expert by any stretch of the imagination, so if I can manage, why can't the big boys who do nothing but Linux?
Why all the drama? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.deadpixelnews.com/)
The vast majority of mysql users will never buy a support contract, and those few who do, will probably be RedHat or Suse. (When was the last time a Debian user admitted he needed help for anything?)
Instead of having to support dozens of distros, Mysql is supporting the main two. It may be Open Source, but it's still a business.
D
Almost there (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I've been getting kinda tired of the whole cult surrounding MySQL's substandard "RDBMS".
Of all the posts here (Score:2)
If you need support... (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be my guess at least.
Opportunity for Postgres (Score:2)
(http://www.portcommodore.com/)
Did anyone catch the relationship? (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday February 02 2007, @11:08AM)
-BA
Varying Levels of Support (Score:2)
The linked support list was to the Enterprise version, but check out Cluster and MaxDB versions.
Oddly enough, they claim FS - full support for Debian 3.0 on the PowerPC architecture.
No need to fork! (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to clarify the crappy summary, MySQL are not saying that their software won't run on Debian or Ubuntu or whatever... It will still run on most OSs and distros, but if you are using Linux, MySQL AB will only sell you a support contract for MySQL if you are running on Dead Rat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) or Novhell (SLES?).
Get it? Got it? Good!
Demographic question (Score:2)
(http://null.set/)
No Free alternatives.... (Score:2)
Moo (Score:1)
(http://tkatch.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 29, @02:09PM)
As a Database Programmer (and erstwhile DBA) i am saddened by the haphazard mySQL being called a database. For a while it didn't even support transactions. It's actually more of a storage system with a quai-SQL front end.
By dropping that facade from Debian people might be more inclined to use a real database such as PostgreSQL, which has been in the background for much too long.
For the quality that Debian stands for, from my PoV, this is a very good thing.
I would talk of progress here, but Progress is by far the absolute worst database system i have worked with.
Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.vendorama.com/)
I doubt most Debian users will care.
This just in... (Score:2)
(http://www.linuxplatform.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 16 2003, @04:31PM)
Screw this (Score:2)
(http://www.yvan256.net/)
j/k
Too many linuxes (Score:2)
Having just wasted a few days trying to get one bit of "Linux-compatible" software to work on another subtly different flavour Linux (thankyou RedHat for your borked gcc 2.96), I have some sympathy for saying "we only support flavour X".
Is there such a thing as one Linux distro to suit all users? Probably not. Could there maybe be 2 or 3 that would suit virtually all users? I think so. This move from MySQL seems like a step towards that.
they're still supporting me! (Score:1)
(http://philchambers.co.uk/)
fyi: if you run anything like a large site (we sustain 4000qps most of the day), i would highly recommend a support contract with them. it's very cheap for 24/7/365 access to the devs.
X not R! (Score:1)
(http://www.chaeron.com/)
Skip a generation and go with a good XML DBMS. Something like eXist perhaps?
Wait for Ubuntu... (Score:1)
Support Through OS Vendor? (Score:1)
Actually, that's Debian GNU/Linux (Score:2)
(http://www.smileystation.com/)
Well it take about 20 minutes more. (Score:1)
Install RedHat on a spare machine / vmware.
Move your database to the temporary system.
Reproduce the problem.
Contact their support team.
Since when debugging things your going to be using the offline system anyway ?
The real questions are... (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Tuesday October 22 2002, @08:13AM)
that being said, is it the "Open Source" project which is only supporting these distributions?
The link takes us to a link for MySQL Enterprise. Since MySQL AB provides contract based service for MySQL, this is one way MySQL generates corporate cashflow which allows them to continue to work on MySQL.
Unfortunately, corporations have limited resources called humans who aren't always as zealous or passionate as people involved in an Open Source project. Therefore, they pick and choose which path to follow the money trail not their passion.
The concept of Open Source is not the same as the traditional monetary based business model.
The real question is down the road. (Score:2)
The Mysql support staff are still a major force in the open-source aspects of the Database submitting bugs, patches, etc. If they cease doing Q&A on other distros then either the rest of the community will have to pick up testing their patches. Over tim I expect that this will, at least, bias the systems patchsets in favor of the "supported" distros.
The real issues won't show up today but 2 to 3 years down the road.
Their loss, not ours. It makes sense though really (Score:1)
However, some Managers do (generally those who talk more affectively than they manage IT), and most of those Managers will be using SuSE and/or Red Hat, as they would much rather pay some vendor for support, rather than face accountability issues when the ish hits the fan.
I had a similar debate w/ our CTO regarding the matter, and of coarse, he chose RHEL over Debian. Most of it came down to the issue of vendor support, whereas I felt that I am paid to be the support tech, so why pay them as well.
I guess the real question here should be: Why would a debian admin need to pay for support when he/she is (usually) experienced enough to find most of the answers on their own??
I think it would be funnier if (Score:1)
Is it really a problem? (Score:2)
(http://www.gecko-ak.org/)
IMHO, it isn't really a problem because, even though I've used MySQL personally and professionally for something like six years, I've *never* needed support on it. Let's face it, my Slack and Gentoo servers aren't "supported" either, nor is my Apache installation, my Postfix installation, my Bind installation, etc., etc., etc.--except by me, and so far, that's been good enough.
A lesson here (Score:1, Troll)
It just proves there is no dual-licensing choice. This is effectively a proprietary licensing scheme (or scam). It's just another form of making the customer fall prey to the vendor. Now we see yet another facet of this loophole: the company ties support to vendors that charge per-seat licenses. A perfect scheme, a +/+ game for the vendors, both of the software and the OS. You loose, sucker.
The BSD license does not have this loophole, and leverages the playing field for everyone. You want to "close" the BSD solution, and package it as a proprietary solution? Do it. You want it as free software? It's there. The GPL, on the other hand, by a flaw in design is used for the type of maneuvering we see in this case.
Is it any wonder Google has chosen non-GPL licenses for a lot of their released open-source code?
what do you expect (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Sunday October 28, @11:25AM)
Are we surprised? (Score:1)
(http://aqpeag.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 21 2007, @05:39AM)
Debian want to fork all and sundry, or at the very least create internal patchsets for pretty much everything they get their hands on, and then people don't understand why they don't get support from upstream vendors?
Said people might support their own applications, but they are under no obligation to support Debian's own non-standard, patched versions of their apps.
On a related note, I had my last negative compiling experience with Ubuntu the other night, and as a single individual at least am hereby boycotting Debian and its' derivatives entirely. The reasons are too numerous to count, but are both technical and political.
As a positive alternative, I advocate a rennaisance of Slackware. It's a clean, sane, non-fragmented distribution. It doesn't use any seriously concrete form of package management by default, meaning you're free to choose your own...and it also by extension doesn't use a particular, unholy form of perverted evil known as subpackaging. It also doesn't see Linux's heritage as a UNIX clone as something to be ashamed of, or a hindrance to the goal of creating a perfect imitation of Windows.
Going back to the parent topic, Slackware would also likely be great to use as a standard for vendors such as MySQL, *because* the Slack developers largely abstain from downstream patching, (at least AFAIK) and as mentioned are package management agnostic. Hence, it'd be a very easy distro to support.
If anyone here hasn't tried Slack themselves, I thoroughly suggest it. You can look forward to a level of transparency and reliability you'll scarcely find anywhere else. It's a form of Linux which isn't afraid of being itself, and that tragically is a very rare thing these days.
Bad title (Score:2)
MySQL response: MySQL's Commitment to Debian (Score:2)
-----
MySQL's Commitment to Debian
December 13, 2006
MySQL AB apologizes for any miscommunication that may have implied that the
MySQL database does not run on the popular Debian Linux operating system, or
that the company does not offer technical support for MySQL Enterprise
subscribers using Debian.
We have a strong commitment to Debian and other forms of Linux - for both
open source community developers and corporate enterprises.
The Debian Linux operating system is an active, growing and successful
platform for the MySQL database to run on.
Our company offers freely-available downloads of the MySQL Community Server
in source code and binary format at
http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/5.0.html [mysql.com] for Debian and other flavors
of Linux -- including Red Hat Enterprise Linux, SUSE Linux Enterprise
Server, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc. -- as well as Microsoft Windows, Macintosh OSX,
Solaris, FreeBSD, HP-UX, IBM AIX and SCO OpenServer.
For paying customers, our company also offers 'MySQL Enterprise', a
comprehensive set of production-tested software, proactive monitoring tools,
and premium support services.
Since its official launch in October, we have delivered versions of the
MySQL Enterprise Server software for RHEL, SLES and a general-purpose
version that runs on other forms of Linux -- including Debian. Starting in
Q1 2007, we will also deliver regular software updates for the Debian and
Ubuntu platforms as well.
As in the past, MySQL AB continues to offer paid technical support for
customers running MySQL on Debian and other versions of Linux. This is
available as part of our MySQL Enterprise subscription service. A complete
list of MySQL Enterprise supported platforms is available here:
http://www.mysql.com/support/supportedplatforms/e
We will continue to monitor the popularity of other operating systems and
user requests when considering extending our platform support in the future.
Again, MySQL AB regrets any inconvenience this misunderstanding may have
caused.
-----
James Day, Support Engineer, MySQL AB
Python support for MySQL on Windows is dead. (Score:2)
(http://www.animats.com)
Just recently, support for Python's connection to MySQL, "MySQLdb", stopped working on Windows. See this discussion [sourceforge.net] in the MySQLdb help forum on SourceForge.
Unlike Perl and PHP, the standard Python distribution doesn't support MySQL. There's a third-party add-on on SourceForge [sourceforge.net] for that. It has one developer, and he's not interested in maintaining the Windows version. The Python 2.5 update apparently broke the Windows build.
Some help is being provided by a World of Warcraft guild [guildmanus.com], which has managed to build MySQLdb for Windows. But that hasn't been tested by anyone else.
Also, although the current MySQL understands Unicode, and the current Python understands Unicode, the MySQLdb module in the middle is reported to crash on Unicode.
I'd thought something as basic as a database connection for a language used primarily on web servers would be a solved problem, but for Python, it's not.
Re:Let's fork it! (Score:5, Informative)
Now, if you wanted to start a new company that offered Enterprise support for MySQL on Debian, you might have something there. I don't know that you would make any money, but at least you'd be offering something that isn't currently offered.
Re:Let's fork it! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.whiteboxlinux.org/)
I doubt it. And more important than my opinion, MySQL doubts it and has the sales figures to show it. Companies don't normally kill off profitable products and services, not even evil/stupid corporations.
Profitability (Score:5, Insightful)
Companies kill off profitable lines all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, when I was a kid a local pizza delivery chain started delivering breakfast pizzas. They made money hand over fist. But after a few months, the calculated that the additional cost of maintaining a third shift of workers and an expanded breakfast menu would bring in more money if put into opening additiona stores serving the traditional lunch, dinner, late night crowd with the normal pizzaria menu.
Most likely what is happening is that the MySQL corporation finds that if it spends the same number of dollars training a support tech, those dollars bring in more money if the tech is dedicated to Redhat and/or SuSE than if the tech is also trained on Debian. This doesn't mean that there is no market for Debian support. It means only that MySQL has a higher relative profit from supporting just two databases. The calculation may be different for another company that has a different resource pool. For example a company that already supports Debian Linux, may have a very low marginal cost for adding MySQL on Debian support and, consequently, have a far higher ROI for supporting MySQL on Debian.
Re:UBUNTU ! Why Hath Thou Foresaken Me ? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.lifeatthehelpdesk.com/)
Only in WoW...
Yes, I know, there goes my Karma.
Re:Let's fork it! (Score:4, Informative)
Second, the Mozilla trademark issue was at its core unavoidable. Debian has to be able to say to its derivative distros that everything in "main" is really free, Mozilla had copyrighted images that were NOT free, so Debian couldn't use them and Mozilla responded by saying they had to rename the browser. So they did, and the Mozilla-branded browser remains in "non-free" due to the copyrighted images. Everyone accusing Debian of hypocrisy on the trademark issue because they have an official logo is (to be blunt) wrong. Debian has an official logo (that they hardly ever use) to provide legal recourse to stop anyone else claiming to be Debian. It is otherwise of no use in the project and does nothing to prevent derivative distros from doing their own thing when they want to.
Incidentally, the Mozilla trademark dispute has caused me to reinvestigate my use of ALL software from Mozilla. I'm finding that KDE software is far more user-friendly and powerful than the Mozilla software across a number of applications. KMail can be made (rather easily) to store mail in ~/Mail in mbox format, its mail filters execute much faster, I can right-click -> "Create Filter" -> "Filter on From" in seconds, and in dozens of other ways it kicks mozilla-mail's ass. Likewise KNode, Konqueror, and Kontact.
Re:Let's fork it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's fork it! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's fork it! (Score:5, Insightful)
...or switch to the excellent Postgres [postgresql.org] which is more open and a more complete SQL implementation than MySQL anyway.
Expect to see more things like this happening as the IT landscape undergoes it's coming changes.
Re:Let's fork it! (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want high availibility you have to cobble together slony and pgpool (which does not support multi master replication) neither of which is suitable for working over a WAN.
There is a reason why people choose MySql and that's because it delivers the features people really want first. Even the features are not 100% "correct" they are delivered "good enough" to get "real work" done.
Take case insesntive where clauses for example. For the last five years or so that I have been following the pg mailing lists there must have been hundreds of requests from people who want to switch over from mysql, ms-sql, oracle, informix, firebird etc for a case insensitive collation option. They just get ignored and told to change all their queries to use ILIKE or *~ or some other stupid non standard postgres only SQL. Oddly enough their primary excuse for not providing it is that it's not a SQL standard.
So if you using any kind of an ORM and you can not stomach asking your employees or web users to remember the exact capitalization of everything they have ever typed into your database then postgres is not an option.
Sorry.
Re:Let's fork it! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.terminalcult.org/)
I think there is a market for this. The only thing you need is a couple of good people. You/we(the community) could also create a company GPL style. Create a pool of people willing to devote there time on solving MySQL Debian support problems. Create a ticket like system and assign questions to people in the pool.
This way you can quickly create a non-profit company with little to non investments. The biggest "problem" is that you have to attract people willing to become part of you expert pool.
While writing this, it might even be a good challenge to start this..... I will think some more about this.
Regards,
Johan Louwers.
Re:How to commit corporate suicide in OSS (Score:1)
(http://cactiusers.org/)
3. ????
4. Profit!!
Its an odd business plan, but it always seems to pan out in the end.
Re:Linux is not enterprise quality (Score:1)
(http://davemayo.is-a-geek.org/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 29 2003, @12:44PM)
As opposed to.... what? Windows? VMS? Solaris? Your Mother?
I'm pretty sure that all operating systems, at some point, are hacked together by collections of individuals. How "craptastic" they are may have some variation, but I'd guess that, out of the hundreds of people who worked on Linux, some were "craptastic." Same for Windows. Same for VMS, the BSDs, etc.
I can't tell you if, by and large, the people who worked on any particular OS are "craptastic."
But you sure are!
Ba-ZING!
That may or may not be the case (Score:1)
Re:Simple; Linux brings too much overhead. (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
USB subsystem changes between SUSE 10.0 and 10.1 produced some spectacular driver failures. New elements inserted in the middle of USB data structs in a point upgrade of a "stable" kernel?!?!? What is stable about that?
The Linux development and distrribution process has a LOT to learn about system stability. Expecting EVERYONE to ALWAYS be 100% current and recompile EVERYTHING for EVERY distro and then NEVER updrade an installed kernel or libs again (you know to fix bugs or security holes?) without chancing having to rebuild the entire universe or suffer random breakages is completely and utterly wrong headed.
This may have been fine in the good old days of "install and forget". But these days with the need to be CONSTANTLY up on security patches, it's become quite a nightmare to maintain a linux box for any length of time without having to do a complete reinstall because of unresolvable incompatibility problems between the Kernel, libs and software. Doing it by hand is a major recipe for disaster, but even keeping up with a distro's precompiled sets of upgrades is a crap shoot and has resulted in serveral system failures.
Linux needs stability in a BAD way.
Re:Let's fork it! (Score:2)
I suppose you are an expert in database design and programming? Wanna start writing a cost based optimizer? How about an obfuscation toolkit? Or even better, write a new writer process that can perform writes to multiple database files based on requests over a network connection?
ROFLMAO!
Re:Let's fork it! (Score:2)
(http://www.codemonkeyx.org/)
(I couldn't resist!)
Re:Let's fork it! (Score:2)
Fork you.
Re:Let's fork it! (Score:1)
(http://clubconway.com/)