From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946468AbXBIN7i (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:59:38 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1946470AbXBIN7h (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:59:37 -0500 Received: from smtp16.wxs.nl ([195.121.247.7]:64110 "EHLO smtp16.wxs.nl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946468AbXBIN7g (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 08:59:36 -0500 Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:00:59 +0100 From: jos poortvliet X-Face: $0>4o"Xx2u2q(Tx!D+6~yPc{ZhEfnQnu:/nthh%Kr%f$aiATk$xjx^X4admsd*)=?utf-8?q?IZz=3A=5FkT=0A=09=7CurITP!=2E?=)L`*)Vw@4\@6>#r;3xSPW`,~C9vb`W/s]}Gq]b!o_/+(lJ:b)=?utf-8?q?T0=26KCLMGvG=7CS=5E=0A=09z=7B=5C=2E7EtehxhFQE=27eYSsir/=7CtQ?= =?utf-8?q?j=23rWQe4o?=>WC>_R To: Con Kolivas Cc: ck@vds.kolivas.org, Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <200702091501.04265.jos@mijnkamer.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary=nextPart1201329.gBYkiMHHnp Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5 + Features References: <200702091038.37143.kernel@kolivas.org> <200702091413.06949.jos@mijnkamer.nl> <200702100022.45464.kernel@kolivas.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --nextPart1201329.gBYkiMHHnp Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Op Friday 09 February 2007, schreef Con Kolivas: > On Saturday 10 February 2007 00:13, jos poortvliet wrote: > > Nobody has said anything about costs, indeed. Now afaik, swap prefetch = is > > designed to have no/as little as possible costs, so that makes sense. > > Does it have to have some bugs, which have to be adressed, before it can > > enter? I'm sure this can be arranged, right, Con? > > > > Sorry if I sound sarcastic. I'm no hacker myself, and sometimes these > > discussions don't make sense to me. A bit like the Staircase thingy -> > > > > "hi, I've got this piece of code which does the same as that piece, but > > better" > > "Why didn't you improve the old code?" > > "This is a better design -> half the code but doing a better job" > > "Well, it's not tested as much, so it won't go in. Go away!" > > > > There where those comments from Torvalds some time ago in an interview, > > about the kernel community becoming harder to get involved with. As an > > outsider, it sure seems so. I read frustrations everywhere. What about > > the kevent guy, his blog: http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/blog > > > > I stumbled upon it when reading LWN. Seems pretty sad... I don't get the > > technical stuff, but the frustration almost blows up your monitor. Is > > there something fundamentally wrong with the kernel-hackers-culture, or > > are these incidents? > > I greatly appreciate the support. Truly I do. > > But I do not like the direction this argument is going. Please let it go. Ok. I appologize to those who might have felt attacked, this wasn't meant=20 personally to anybody, more to the community as a whole. --nextPart1201329.gBYkiMHHnp Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBFzH6g+wgQ1AD35iwRAkosAJ4s/nEXStSv7Z1PwNCE0jnt8c0txwCeMod2 J7iSmANaorOq28NUiDIciyo= =VG2e -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1201329.gBYkiMHHnp--