TAG | A conversation with Martin Michlmayr |
|
| by Sam Varghese | |
| Thursday, 31 January 2008 | |
|
Page 4 of 6 With the Linux kernel, there are commercial pressures for timely releases. You pointed out that Andrew Morton had said a while ago that the kernel is becoming more and more buggy due to the inclusion of so many features. So do you think one should set some kind of optimum period for releases? Say, you shouldn't do it every six months but maybe once a year? I think it's quite hard because there are different requirements. You want to put out software, but at the same time it should be pretty stable. I think you just have to find a good balance. In the case of the Linux kernel, I don't know whether they have that balance at the moment - I think the focus is on getting new features in but very few people care about the bugs in existing features. But when you consider that developers care more about putting new stuff in than fixing bugs - which is just boring - it's very hard to motivate people to fix bugs. Do you think you can divide a project so that one group of people look after adding the features and another group looks after fixing the bugs? I don't think it should be separate. Ideally people should fix their own bugs; if they introduce bugs, they should fix them. You can't demand something from someone who is working as a volunteer. How do you do that? You just have to show them that it's part of writing the features, that you have to fix the bugs as well. Can't you tell them that if they don't fix the bugs, then they can't be part of the project? Well, it probably doesn't have to be that extreme, but hopefully people will realise that being a developer is more than just about making new things. It's more about making them work for everyone. But it's not just volunteers who have that problem. It's the same in companies. They contribute something to the Linux kernel, then it's fine. If someone else discovers a bug in what they've contributed, then often they don't care because it's not a bug they encounter. Some companies are very good, they really care and they maintain it very well, but there are other companies that don't. A couple of days back two of your colleagues from the Debian project spoke about the need for companies to support the project . Why this sudden push for more big corporates to get involved with Debian? I think there may be different reasons. I think one reason may be that with Linux becoming so much more professional, as a pure volunteer project, you simply can't compete anymore. With volunteers, some things are kind of slow, especially if you don't have paid people to focus on things full-time. The other thing is that having major backers involved in the project gives you credibility. Those may be the reasons. |
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|
