[snip]
> It's important to remember that when we make gratuitous changes that
> seem to have very little benefit besides forcing kernel modules to get
> recompiled, it's not screwing over IBM. IBM/Transarc wasn't making a
> penny from the Linux AFS port. It screwed over MIT users --- MIT users
> who need AFS access so they can access their Project Athena files from
> their Linux boxes in their dorm rooms ---- MIT users who said, "Why is
> it that NetBSD doesn't have these problems in their stable kernel; only
> Linux seems to consistently break things?"
How come, that if IBM doesn't make a penny from AFS, they don't release
the source, so that we can include it in the kernel?!!?!
> And as a result, I've seen more than a few MIT users decide to give up
> on Linux and move over to NetBSD. I think this is bad, and I'm hoping
> we can take just a little bit more care in the 2.2 series than we did in
> the 2.0 series. Is that really too much to ask?
No, I think this is definitely a legit request. But I also think that
Linus is very determined to do this. He has been very restrictive with
v2.2 patches so far.
/David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
-
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/