>> Why is this controversial? > > Because you're missing the point, and arguing against a > position nobody holds.
The original post (in its way) was asking for advice about an amd64 kernel that is not publicly available. Some people (not knowing the full situation) offered advice about publicly available amd64 kernels and were shot down. Everything else follows from that. I agree, it's a bit muddled at this point, but I've been responding directly to things people have said. The mailing lists for each fork are open to the public. E-mail addresses of principles are all known. The only people who aren't at the party are the ones who haven't bothered to show up. Again, where is the problem? Are we supposed to hire professional coordinators to make the process seem more official? It seems to me the sort-of-articulated complaint is that all of this work is not being conducted under the watchful eye of a centralized authority. Do you mean something like patch(1)? With work being coordinated by staff at Bell Labs? > What some folks are suggesting is that some coordination > would yield better results; that we can do better than the > "everyone going off and doing their own thing" part of the > above scenarios. People working on the forks are in constant contact. How could the situation be improved? My observation was that secret code helps no one. Maybe the code is not really secret, but is instead held up somewhere in the coordination process. For years, and years, and years at a time. sl
