In <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007222340490.5862-100000@dax.joh.cam.ac.uk> James Sutherland (jas88@cam.ac.uk) wrote:
JS> On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Khimenko Victor wrote:
>> In <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007212148400.4130-100000@dax.joh.cam.ac.uk> James Sutherland (jas88@cam.ac.uk) wrote:
>> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Andre Hedrick wrote:
>>
>> >> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Dan Hollis wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I used a bad word of choice. I can not DISKTOBRICK.
>> >> But can genrate code that will attempt and may have success.
>> >> Regardless do you want access to such attempts available in the kernel?
>> >> Unchecked?
>>
>> > Let's make it a config option (CONFIG_SELFDESTRUCTBUTTON), release it in
>> > 2.4.0, then see how many people enable it. That should clear this argument
>> > up :-)
>>
>> It will not. You can not find truth by voting. Few years ago (less then 1000)
>> most peoples were sure that Earth is flat, for example.
JS> I wouldn't put "not enabling self-destruct" in that category, though. You
JS> might want a self-destruct facility on your machine - that's fine. Just do
JS> NOT try to get it (kept) in the kernel for other people to hurt themselves
JS> with.
Have you EVER looked on patch or you just pushing it without thinking about
it's design ? Somemething compel me to think that you not even know what patch
is doing and have even less clue a about Linus's reasons to reject it.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 23 2000 - 21:00:19 EST