Richard Brown composed on 2016-05-25 02:08 (UTC+0200):
Two kernels in the same distro? Users having to switch to one during the lifecycle of the distro? That complexity and that forced changing brings with it risk - new kernels break things for some people. Some people don't want to take those risks. Those are the people we make Leap for.
Leap is never going to support the latest and greatest hardware. It's not meant to. It's meant to be a reliable, dependable, workhorse of a distribution that people can put their faith into. .. I'm open to debate on that point but I feel the arguments need to be stronger than the USB 3.1 Gen 2 case.
Those who want the "stability" and "reliability" of Leap are forced to either buy new hardware up to 24 months in advance of need, or ensure when they buy new hardware that its technology is fully 18-24 months old when they buy it. That's got to make some people look for a better distro choice. For comparision, (I realize Fedora supposedly isn't made for people looking for optimium stability), how is it that Fedora can pull off what it does with its kernels? Fedora 21: release kernel 2014-12-09: 3.17.4 last kernel before support termination: 4.1.13 Fedora 22: release kernel 2015-05-26: 4.0.4 current kernel: 4.4.9 Fedora 23: release kernel 2015-11-03: 4.2.3 current kernel: 4.4.9 Fedora 24: release kernel 2016-06-??: 4.5.? Why not instead of the last LTS kernel, release Leap with whatever the last release kernel was at #.2+ in use by TW, e.g. est. 4.7.5 or 4.8.2+ @~8-15 Oct 2016, then have a period 4 months or less following until ~Jan for converting to new LTS with which to stick? -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org