Re: Geez.
@ Medixstiff
The immediate takeaway point is this is a philosophy of ship when it's fit to ship vs ship on a given date (say July 29th?) whether it's fit or not.
Another point is that new kernels are released on a cycle of a few months, not a few years. It's not a case of some new shiny that has a big marketing machine cranked up to go on it.
You should also realise that this is just a kernel release. Only a few people waiting to pounce on this: people who like to keep a bleeding edge box to play with, kernel devs taking this as a new baseline and distro builders. Of the latter those building rolling latest-everything distros will incorporate it. Others will do so if it fits into their time-line for a next release.
For most users it's the major distro releases that matter. They do tend to release to a fixed schedule for the simple reason that they're building from components that, like the kernel, have a release when it's ready approach. And for those of us who've been round the block a few times the distros we prefer are those that have the most conservative release cycles which can run to years; we're not sitting chewing our fingernails in anticipation of a new distro release let alone a new kernel.
But the real issue is that the comparison between Linus and a corporate CEO is utterly false. His role is that of gatekeeper of what actually goes into the product free of any external concerns. That means that the Linux kernel is a product determined entirely by the organisation's QA authority. It's the absence of media, boards and shareholders that allow that to happen. The stakeholders here are just the developers and users; that is, the people who really matter.
So, taking your statement that you like this at face value, I have to agree with you.