In article <39B6A683.3F75DC9D@timpanogas.com>,
Jeff V. Merkey <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>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.
Explain to me again why I should care?
Read my posting again. Read the "I'm a bastard" part twice. Realize
that in the end, I don't care who speds money, time, and effort. In the
end, I think that we're better off _without_ code that hasn't been
More code, more people, more money. Why should I think they are good
The people, the projects, the companies that come though that test of
fire victorious are not only stronger for it, but more importantly, they
are the kind of people, projects adn companies who DID get through.
Dedicated. Smart. And careful.
Think of rabbits. And think of how the wolf helps them in the end. Not
by being nice, no. But the rabbits breed, and they are better for having
to worry a bit.
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