Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:02:46 -0700 (PDT) | From | "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <> | Subject | Re: Kernel developer attitudes, a problem to watch for. |
| |
On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, David Lang wrote:
[soapbox snipped]
In the absence of
a. A formal software development process,
b. Formal requirements documents,
c. A high-level formal design document,
d. Marketing and sales,
e. A formal Quality Assurance, Security Assurance and Performance Assurance effort,
f. A corporate structure,
etc. ...
I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to behave in a different manner from the way they currently behave. I've heard this described as a brutal meritocracy, and organizations that need any of the above to meet their objectives are free to implement them at their own cost and to their own (and presumably their customers') benefit.
That said, I think Linux could benefit greatly from some of the above, in particular c. and e. And the recent debate over printk vs. event logs would be a non-issue if we had b. and d. -- we'd have both because one is wonderful for rapid debugging and the other is wonderful for system administration. -- M. Edward Borasky znmeb@borasky-research.net
The COUGAR Project http://www.borasky-research.com/Cougar.htm
If God had meant carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits fire.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |