On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, 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), ...
There are customers who actually require a decent, reasonable
solution to this problem. If there is a decent, reasonable
solution, great. If not, then one will be generated.
| 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.
-- ~Randy- 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 - 21:00:39 EST