Re: PATCH: Raw device IO for 2.1.131

Mike A. Harris (mharris@ican.net)
Thu, 17 Dec 1998 08:06:23 -0500 (EST)


On 15 Dec 1998, Harald Milz wrote:

>> 1) Linus and most of us are not being paid for this, and we are not
>> doing this to sell. There *are* only technical issues.
>
>C'mon. Linus and you are not being paid for this but there are people out
>there who make their living on selling Linux. Linux just for fun, that's
>been quite a while ago.

Tough luck. Linus hasn't been wrong yet with regards to what
goes in the kernel. This is evidenced by the userbase increasion
curve. If someone makes their living by selling Linux, then good
for them. If it doesn't, then they can start looking for
something that does what they want.

I say that Linus puts in the kernel what he feels is the proper
technical solution to whatever the job is at hand. That is
likely what he will do, and has always done. No amount of
whining and complaining is going to change that. Not for your
job, or anyone else's. If anything, whining will ensure that it
NEVER goes in the kernel.

>From my experience reading this list, new features that are
requested that differ from the Linux norm are met sometimes with
trepidation. If someone wants a feature implemented, it *IS*
*THEIR* *RESPONSIBILITY* to do so. PERIOD. People aren't paid
to code, they code WHAT THEY WANT. If you want raw I/O, code it.
Follow normal coding guidelines, etc.. If your solution truly
has any technical merit, then and only then when the code is
written in reality, is it an issue at all. Nobody codes stuff
for the kernel "because someone else's job depends on it" or
"because I damned well need it".

If you damned well need it, then damned well code it.

>> 2) I'm sorry, but part of being a professional *is* telling the
>> customer what's good for them. It's called professional
>> integrity.
>
>As a service professional, I learnt to a) listen to the customer's wishes
>and b) not arguing against them of, and c) to talk to development if my
>product doesn't fulfil them. This is proven to work.

AFAIC - in Linux, there *IS* no customer. The kernel is
developed by those who are kind enough to write code for it.
They implement what they want and what interests them.

I suggest you go to http://www.opensource.org and read ALL of
Eric S. Raymond's *EXCELLENT* papers that describe the open
source concept. Linux will go on, with or without you, based on
its technical merits. The lack of a feature you may like will
not effect it.

RedHat/Caldera, etc.. on the other hand, DO have customers. If
*THEIR* customers demand such a feature, then I would think that
they themselves have financial interest in paying coders to whip
up the necessary code, and sell it. The free development
community however doesn't give a rats ass for what features Joe
Blow demands. Their satisfaction comes from the various sources
cited in Eric Raymonds fabulous papers described above. From
peer acceptance, self satisfaction, ego boost, sense of
accomplishment, etc.. If you think it is for money... you have a
lot to learn, so please go back to Microsoft land.

>> 3) Isn't 'telling the customer what's good for them' exactly what
>> Oracle et al. would be doing here?
>
>No. I said they could argue "well we do support Linux but it's suboptimal
>compared to HP, Sun because we can't use raw devices".

Good, then the solution to your problem is to use HP and Sun, and
tell people how much Linux sucks. Go nuts. We really don't
care.

Linus has given us his code for free, as have the thousands of
other developers including Alan Cox, davem, mingo, Donald Becker,
and hundreds of others. It is them, and all the other
maintainers that deserve thanks. They do not deserve whining
however.

>> 4) Linus has made it clear a number of times on this issue that he
>> doesn't think raw disk device access is a good idea, and he's not
>> prepared to add such a feature to the kernel just because 'everyone
>> else does it'.
>
>Yes I can read. My opinion is different, though, and not only mine.

Perhaps. Just a mortal opinion though. Linus (as you should be
aware) is not subject to mortal opinion however. He rules the
infinite bounds of the power of the source! The Jedi Knights
(core developers) rule by his side, and will crush all that
oppose! Join us! Join the powers of the dark side Fluke, and
give up RAW I/O!!!!

Otherwise, next you'll want raw soundblaster port access, video
access, etc... and then you'll want to disable multitasking
because the overhead limits the effective speed of single task
systems. In the end you'll end up with MS-DOS. If that's what
you want, use it.

>> Well, you could still use a partition like /dev/sda1 for a database --
>> the only issue is that this goes through the buffer cache instead of
>> reading or writing directly to the disk.
>
>Which is exactly what Oracle et al. are not going to do - for obvious
>reasons. This is not an "issue" but a showstopper. But you were kidding
>anyway, weren't you?

I can't speak for him, but I get sick of these postings. Once
Linus has spoken, you can flame and argue all you want. Check
the archives of this list, it'll save you time. Argue all you
want, you won't get anywhere. I get sick of reading some of
these threads that go on and on to no end, when in reality I know
the outcome from watching similar threads develop for the last 3
years. So, my posting is to try and make you (and others stuck
on the RAW I/O thing "see the light". That light is "you want
it? - You code it". It's nothing new.

A *PERFECT* example of that is Richard Gooch's "devfs" patches.
As I recall, his devfs idea was met by countless arguments, etc.
My personal opinion was that devfs lost the argument way back
then, as it seemed that there was more opposition to the idea
than those for it. I wasn't involved and didn't care either way
as it would be a config option anyways so...

As a result, he whipped it up, and has been constantly supplying
patches for every kernel since. Linus has hinted that devfs
*MIGHT* go into 2.2, although it doesn't quite look like it will
just now. Nonetheless Linus was interested after the code
appeared.

That is my point. Write the code, show what it does, and why it
is the technically superior solution to the problem at hand, THEN
submit it to linus, perhaps with some benchmarks.

Then and only then will it become reality.

This message is not particularly aimed specifically as a flame,
but rather a thread killer. With a pinch of the dark side thrown
in to lighten things up a bit. ;o)

If you are offended, it was not my intention. Everyone gets sick
of these threads, and we all have to lash out every now and then
to try and kill off the wasted bandwidth.

>Error in operator: add beer

Or subtract beer - it makes you think clearer, and argue less.

;o)

--
Mike A. Harris  -  Computer Consultant  -  Linux advocate

Linux software galore: http://freshmeat.net

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/