lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.030 / U:1.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site