On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 09:54:30PM +0100, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> On February 7, 2002 09:34 pm, Mike Touloumtzis wrote:
> > Some possible available avenues of argument for you are:
>
> I think you're just arguing for the sake of argument, which basically sums
> up all the arguments we've seen against this.
Not at all. I really believe that embedded unnecessary information in
the kernel is a bad idea. I don't want my kernels to get any bigger
than they are now unless useful features are being added (I have no
problem with that). I develop for embedded devices, so I'm particularly
sensitive to this issue.
My understanding is that "keep features out of the kernel if possible"
is the majority opinion, not a crackpot weirdo stance.
> Let me put it in simple terms: you've got an alarm clock, haven't you? When
> you set the alarm, you don't need to have any little light on the front that
> tells you the alarm is set, do you? Because, after all you're not stupid,
> you know you set it. And you can always get out of bed and look at the
> position of the switch, right?
I don't think this is a close enough analogy to illustrate anything.
The examples I chose to illustrate my points were IMHO closely related
software packaging issues.
miket
-
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 : Thu Feb 07 2002 - 21:01:07 EST