Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Apparently, if you follow the arguments, not having a kernel debugger
> leads to various maladies:
> - you crash when something goes wrong, and you fsck and it takes forever
> and you get frustrated.
> - people have given up on Linux kernel programming because it's too hard
> and too time-consuming
> - it takes longer to create new features.
> And nobody has explained to me why these are _bad_ things.
They are bad because they cost people money that could be spent more
productively in other areas due to the lengthening of the development
process and the support costs. Which Linux companies are profitable?
**NONE**. The only people making money are hardware vendors and it's a
model like SUN's, where you get a free "machine driver" with every
system you buy.
> To me, it's not a bug, it's a feature. Not only is it documented, but it's
> _good_, so it obviously cannot be a bug.
> Oh. And sure, when things crash and you fsck and you didn't even get a
> clue about what went wrong, you get frustrated. Tough. There are two kinds
> of reactions to that: you start being careful, or you start whining about
> a kernel debugger.
A lot of problems are related to other people code, new hardware, etc.
How do you tell a customer who is giving you money to "be careful" when
their system crashes and the field service rep hasn't a clue as to
what's wrong? I've been supporting computer customers for over 20
years, and this is not an answer that will give them warm and fuzzy
feelings about using your solution if you have no way of solving
problems quickly. Like any tool, it is there to streamline and improve
the time to resolve problems -- and increase customer confidence in the
> Quite frankly, I'd rather weed out the people who don't start being
> careful early rather than late. That sounds callous, and by God, it _is_
> callous. But it's not the kind of "if you can't stand the heat, get out
> the the kitchen" kind of remark that some people take it for. No, it's
> something much more deeper: I'd rather not work with people who aren't
> careful. It's darwinism in software development.
Then it may be that corporate America weeds out Linux over time if the
costs of supporting it and developing on it are prohibitive -- Wall
Street has already come to this conclusion which is why all the Linux
Companies are being downgraded by the analysts and investors are leary.
Try coordinating a project with 1000 engineers without knowing how much
time things will take? These are the types of issues this helps, the
business case for Linux ....
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 07 2000 - 21:00:27 EST