lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jun]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107
Date
From

In message <3593CC2D.EB9F999@tbcnet.com>, Terry L Ridder wrote:
} Tethys wrote:
} >
} > >I agree with the clients in one respect, why should they put their
} > >time and money into supporting Linux, using Linux, and writing
} > >applications for Linux, when some unknown person in some unknown
} > >location has taken it upon themself to be the Spelling and Grammar
} > >Checker making capricious changes with total disregard for what
} > >those changes break.
} >
} > Of course your clients shouldn't put time and money into supporting and
} > using Linux if it's likely to break because of some strange spelling
} > changes. The point is, it's not.
}
} I am sorry but the evidence proves otherwise.
} Someone has taken it upon themself to be the Spelling and Grammar
} Checker
} and make capricious changes with total disregard for the impact of those
} changes.

Look, ``capricious'' puts in another appearance! :)

} > What on *earth* are you thinking, giving them the latest development
} > kernel? That's what stable kernels are for. Development kernels are by
} > nature unstable and liable to break things -- if you really *need* a
} > feature in the later 2.1 kernels, decide on a version that supports what
} > you need, and *test* it thoroughly. When you're happy that it works,
} > send it out to your clients.
}
} As stated in previous e-mail, the clients are either working on porting
} internal legacy applications to Linux or writing new applications and
} have the desire to work with the development kernel so that when the
} development kernel, Lord willing, becomes Linux 2.2 they are prepared.
} It is their decision to make and it is also their decision to question
} the motives of, in their opinion, a totally capricious act with no
} technological merit.

} > If you need features in 2.1.107 that weren't in earlier versions, then I
} > think you need to say that Linux isn't yet ready for your customers, and
} > let them use something else until those features are stable under Linux.
} >
} > >To break code because someone did not like the way cpu & fpu were
} > >capitalized is lunacy.
} >
} > No, to give clients an untested development kernel that's only been out
} > for a few days is lunacy, and I'm afraid I have little sympathy for you.
}
} Perhaps you could enlighten me concerning your above statement. How am I
} to prohibit a client any client from downloading the developement kernel
} from http://www.kernel.org? Perhaps I should send Linus a list of
} clients
} and their IP addresses so that he can block them from viewing any
} http://www.kernel.org Web Pages and strictly prohibit them from
} downloading
} any development kernels. Of course this would also have to be put in
} place
} for each mirror of http://www.kernel.org.

I assume that you have deliberately missed the point in order to allow yourself
to appear righteous and beat your chest for a while. Of course you can't
prevent anyone from doing just about anything they want, but you *can*
decide who/what you will or will not support. By deciding to support your
client in their use of a development kernel, *you* are choosing to make your
life more difficult. Maybe there's more money involved, and maybe it's worth
it to you. I don't find the underpinnings of your argument particularly
convincing.

} > PS. Aside from anything else, this episode show the folly of parsing
} > text from /proc -- a programatic interface to get kernel information
} > would have been unaffected by this, as well as being more efficient.
} > Just my usual uninformed opinion... :-)
}
} To quote David S. Miller
}
} <Begin Quote>
} But you did, because now as I read those "new and improved" versions
} of the comments I feel like I'm reading a textbook which is dead and
} without life, not a piece of source code which is full of life and
} personality.
[...]
} <End Quote>

That's a dandy quote, but I don't see that it has anything at all to do with
the block of text that you quoted it in response to. Will you be quoting
W. C. Fields in response to a technical question next?

--
Jon Hamilton
hamilton@pobox.com


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.079 / U:0.364 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site