On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 10:01 -0400, Jim Gettys wrote: > On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 06:37, Andrew Pollock wrote: > > > > I'll be interested to see if they're actually sticking to this in 4.5 years > > time... > > > > Probably so: they've been hiring many people who understand the > enterprise software market, and the stability it requires. > > At what price is a different question, of course. > > And whether this is the most fertile market for Linux is a > very different question indeed, or whether Debian could/should > address that market. One of Linux's major strengths is that > one size *doesn't* fit all, which has constrained most systems > immensely. Thing is with Debian, more than likely, it would be only 2 releases. If we might convince some commercial entity to entice some rather good people on the security team to support the stable-1 version for an additional couple of years, it might be doable. Whereas most others beside the Enterprise Editions... are Multiples per year. I doubt it would be difficult for those <Enterprise Software Vendors> to do dynamic linking and use the features of said versions rather than features and *undocumented features of specific versions* to gain stability and/or performance. Either that or provide library stubs so it'll run typically without issue. Providing Library stubs seems the best solution *IF* there is difficulty. Oracle already does this with Java and some other minor things anyway... what would be so hard about the Library stubs? -- greg, greg@gregfolkert.net The technology that is Stronger, better, faster: Linux
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part