[Coco] Linux RBF filesystem support

[John W. Linville]

On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:52:51PM -0400, Chuck Youse wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:34 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> >  
> > > Whichever ass-hat wrote that document isn't writing it for me:
> > > 
> > > Executive Summary
> > > 18	-----------------
> > > 19	You think you want a stable kernel interface, but you really do not, and
> > > 20	you don't even know it.  What you want is a stable running driver, and
> > > 21	you get that only if your driver is in the main kernel tree.  You also
> > > 22	get lots of other good benefits if your driver is in the main kernel
> > > 23	tree, all of which has made Linux into such a strong, stable, and mature
> > > 24	operating system which is the reason you are using it in the first
> > > 25	place.
> > > 
> > > Total horseshit.  And for the record, the main reason why so many people use Linux is because so many other people use Linux.  It's as simple as that.
> > 
> > Well, I'll just vaguely smile and pretend that you've said something
> > meainingful, then drop the discussion... :-)
> 
> My point was
> 
> 1. I do want a stable kernel interface, despite his implication that I
> don't and I'm too stupid to know better.
> 2. I do not want a stable kernel interface because I want some stupid
> driver to work.
> 3. I do not use Linux because it's a strong, stable and mature operating
> system.  I use Linux because I'm forced to for various reasons under
> various circumstances.  The reasons my clients force me to use Linux are
> varied and often based on incomplete information and bad assumptions.
> 
> To simplify the unstable API problem as "I want my driver to work" is
> really quite narrow, and the author is on shaky ground at best.  Some of
> the reasons the author of the above "white paper" cites as justification
> for an unstable API (e.g., alignment of structures caused by different
> versions of the compiler) are absolutely ridiculous.  The fact that I
> have to compile a kernel module against _exactly_ the kernel I am
> running - thousands of compile-time options included - is ludicrous.
> That Linux HAS thousands of compile-time options is similarly ludicrous.
> 
> Linux often gets the job done, but it doesn't mean it's not a big piece
> of shit.  It simply has a lot of market share, which means it will
> continue to have a lot of market share.  That's the way of things.  But
> let's be honest and recognize that Linux gained all that initial
> traction not on technical merit, but on "religious" fervor, the
> rebellion against Microsoft, and the perception that Linux was "cool" by
> a generation of kids who'd never seen anything but Windows.
> 
> Ugh, I have to stop here before I start bleeding out my orifices.

Chuck,

I'm so glad you took the opportunity to have your say -- especially
with such well-reasoned and factual arguments!  You are right,
the Linux kernel developers should hobble themselves with technical
decisions that make you happy -- especially since you so clearly want
to be a part of their community!

I'm so sorry that the evil Linux empire has been tormenting you -- I
mean you practically can't even buy a computer without Linux preloaded
on it, and I can't remember the last time I saw Windows or Mac or
Solaris software for sale, not to mention phones running Symbian
or WinCE.  How does the world survive?  And those stupid clients
of yours, making decisions that you wouldn't make...how dare they?
It's as if they think they know something that you don't.

Well, keep the faith!  I'm sure someday all the religious zealots
will come around and put Windows back on top...until then, keep the
world safe for proprietary software!

John

P.S.  Now you've had your spew, and I've had my sarcastic retorts --
are we done?  I'm sure some are already going to claim that this
"flame war" is "out of control" and "tearing the community apart"
or whatever...
-- 
John W. Linville		Linux should be at the core
linville at tuxdriver.com			of your literate lifestyle.