Quote:
bug fixes can add extra millions of lines depending on the nature of the bug - some bugs exist due to the design of the code rather than something unaccounted for (ie the design of a function is broken so needs an entire rewrite).Originally Posted by jrl1357 
@plan 9 bug fixed don't compose the extra millions of lines of code between each major linux kernal version. You have missed my point. Debian has fixed the bugs in 2.6 without introducing new ones(for the most part), linux 3.0 also fixes these ones but introduces new ones in 'new features' and impovments' all of which arnt tested well enough before release.
@plan 9 bug fixed don't compose the extra millions of lines of code between each major linux kernal version. You have missed my point. Debian has fixed the bugs in 2.6 without introducing new ones(for the most part), linux 3.0 also fixes these ones but introduces new ones in 'new features' and impovments' all of which arnt tested well enough before release.
Also the 3.0 is just an arbitrary number. It doesn't represent any significant change over 2.6; Linus just decided it would be nice to reset the counter after being stuck on 2.6 for several years.
Quote:
Not really. Desktop apps are usually driven by feature upgrades where as enterprise daemons / ABIs / kernel changes are typically driven by bug fixes. It's basically the difference between businesses wanting stable servers and end users wanting pretty desktops.Originally Posted by jrl1357
And the same idea hold true for other things like xorg/xfce other thrid party stuff
And the same idea hold true for other things like xorg/xfce other thrid party stuff
