On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:39:08 +0100, Willy Tarreau said:
> I don't understand why kernel developers always think that users spend
> their whole time testing their new stuff. That is mostly true for a lot
> of desktop users, but definitely not for servers. On a server, you may
> *ignore* that a new
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:08:13 EST, Bill Davidsen said:
can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have
always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*,
guess that model is dead.
And the drivers get better because
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> Forks are allowed, so when you don't like the way some software is
> developed you can always release a version of the software that is in
> your eyes better.
>
What a silly thought. Nobody, I should hope, wants multiple Linuxes
competing and diluting the market. That's
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 08:52:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:08:13 EST, Bill Davidsen said:
>
> > can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have
> > always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*,
> > guess that mode
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 08:08:13PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>...
> If you don't see an ethical problem in removing a working driver which
> is not taking support resources, in order to force people to test and
> debug a driver they don't now and never would need, so that it might in
> time
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:08:13 EST, Bill Davidsen said:
> can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have
> always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*,
> guess that model is dead.
And the drivers get better because the Code Fairy comes and sprin
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:07:41PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
...
In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs*
attention I see no reason to replace it. I
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:07:41PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>>> ...
>>> In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs*
>>> attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that "it
Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
...
In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs*
attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that "it forces
people to try the new driver" is a valid reason, being unmaintained i
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>...
> In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs*
> attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that "it forces
> people to try the new driver" is a valid reason, being unmaintained is
> only a pr
Just a general thought on removing drivers in general, when a driver is
removed because there's a better one, it would be good to have either a
message which shows up at "make oldconfig" time, or a file listing the
driver(s) which replace it.
Half the resistance to removing drivers is finding
11 matches
Mail list logo
