On Thu, 7 Feb 2002 13:08:23 -0800, Mike Touloumtzis
<miket@bluemug.com> wrote:
>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.
An often heard argument is "can it be done in user space", which seems
very applicable here.
john alvord
-
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 - 21:01:08 EST