On February 8, 2002 09:53 pm, Horst von Brand wrote:
> Daniel Phillips <phillips@bonn-fries.net> said:
> > On February 7, 2002 10:41 pm, Mike Touloumtzis wrote:
> > > Adding configuration information to the kernel is a change to the status
> > > quo, and has a cost. The cost is small, but I'm unsympathetic to that
> > > argument because many small convenience features, each with a small cost,
> > > add up to a large cost.
> >
> > The cost is *zero* if you don't enable the option, is this concept difficult
> > for you?
>
> It isn't zero: Somebody has to add the support, check/fix interactions with
> other features, write documentation, keep the support and its documentation
> up to date when stuff in the kernel changes, userland (and user) has to be
> prepared (and checked that it works if the feature is present, and find
> workarounds if it isn't), ...
>
> It might be a small cost, but N * small gets big _very_ fast, and the value
> is marginal at best in this case. There are many other such "small cost
> features" with equally small value results that haven't been included. One
> of the big reasons why I like Linux, BTW.
Non sequitur. You are talking about a completely different cost than he was.
But I'll bite: if a volunteer wishes to contribute the needed work, and the
feature impacts no systems outside itself, then you have no argument.
-- Daniel - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:00:26 EST