Paul Barton-Davis <pbd@Op.Net> said:
> In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 23 Jul 2000 23:22:21 EDT."
> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0007232321180.24364-100000@asdf.capslock.lan>
[...]
> If we extend your argument, we end up with the Windows situation - a
> stupid little lump of a kernel module for every piece of h/w just
> because it has one h/w-specific command that could be communicated by
> a generic module (e.g. sg) but such action is no longer is
> allowed. Can you say "code bloat" ? Well, not really code per se,
> since they're all just distinct modules, but its *stupid*.
The problem here is that fixing a problem with the handling of a generic
command has to be done over and retested and redistributed and... a dozen
times, once for each device. And Murphy's law assures us that it won't be
done just where it matters most. It also burns up developer time (a
_scarce_ resource!) for no reason at all, and to booth the waste goes
mostly to repetitive, boring jobs. We _do_ know better ways of allocating
development resources, have known them for a long time...
-- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513- 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 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 21:00:17 EST