#
# Using defaults found in .config
#
*
* Code maturity level options
*
Prompt for development and/or incomplete code/drivers (CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL) [Y/n/?]
System messages featuring finest profanity (CONFIG_VULGAR) [Y/n/?]
*
* Loadable module support
*
.... *ducks*
Here are my two bits: A natural amount of profanity in the
appropriate places of the code ("Sun blows me"..) are fine, but that
is no incentive to have a kernel which constantly curses, that would
probably get on every users nerve sooner or later. Wasn't there a
proposal to create a curse-kernel? Well, there still is that config
option thing? curse patches? *ducks again*. Mamma mia, I should go now =)
Where is this thread going anyways? Let it be up to Master Linus?
__ _____
/ / _ __ /7 __ _ /_ _/_ _ _ __ Jochen Toppe
n_/ /,'o|,','/ \,'o// \/7 / /,'o| /o| /o|,'o/ Email:jtoppe@cs.uah.edu
\_,' |_,'\_\/n_/|_(/_n_/ /_/ |_,'/_,'/_,'|_( Tel. : (205) 880-1**5
// //
---->>> http://fly.hiwaay.net/~jtoppe <<<----
On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Lex Spoon wrote:
> Khan Klatt wrote:
> >
> > In one paragraph you say you're against replacing curses with %(*^, and
> > in the very next, you say that reputable companies make an effort to take
> > them out when they DO distribute source.
> >
> > So, if we're going to make our source freely distributed, don't you think
> > we should have the same considerations that our friends at Sun or SGI or
> > BSDI do?
>
> (not directed at Khan in particular)
>
> The of a cooperation is to make money. The goal of politically
> correctness is ugly politics.
>
> The goal of Linux should be to make a good OS, and vulgar comments
> make the source code friendlier to hacker-types. How many people
> here are honestly offended by vulgarity? Probably a large
> number, like myelf, actually PREFER it.
>
>
> Lex
>
>
>