Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 14 Dec 2008 12:02:23 +1100 | From | Paul Mackerras <> | Subject | Re: [patch] Performance Counters for Linux, v3 |
| |
Peter Zijlstra writes:
> On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 18:42 +0100, stephane eranian wrote: > > In fact, I know tools which do not even need a library. > > By your own saying, the problem solved by libperfmon is a hard problem > (and I fully understand that). > > Now you say there is software out there that doesn't use libperfmon, > that means they'll have to duplicate that functionality. > > And only commercial software has a clear gain by wastefully duplicating > that effort. This means there is an active commercial interest to not > make perfmon the best technical solution there is, which is contrary to > the very thing Linux is about. > > What is worse, you defend that: > > > Go ask end-users what they think of that? > > > > You don't even need a library. All of this could be integrated into the tool. > > New processor, just go download the updated version of the tool. > > No! what people want is their problem fixed - no matter how. That is one > of the powers of FOSS, you can fix your problems in any way suitable. > > Would it not be much better if those folks duped into using a binary > only product only had to upgrade their FOSS kernel, instead of possibly > forking over more $$$ for an upgrade? > > You have just irrevocably proven to me this needs to go into the kernel, > as the design of perfmon is little more than a GPL circumvention device > - independent of whether you are aware of that or not.
I'm sorry, but that is a pretty silly argument.
By that logic, the kernel module loader should include an in-kernel copy of gcc and binutils, and the fact that it doesn't proves that the module loader is little more than a GPL circumvention device - independent of whether you are aware of that or not. 8-)
Paul.
| |