On Tue, 8 Feb 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
Firstly, this should not be on this list. This is a technical list,
and you appear to be posting complaints about a large corporate's
business practices. We don't even complain about _Microsoft_ here; we
have better things to do.
My shame at responding to your post is surpassed only by my rage at
your abuse.
> Contract? What the hell is this? I have been observing what goes on
> here now for almost 18 months, and from my vantage point, it's clear
> that RedHat just sits at the mouth of each womb ready to devour every
> baby that is born like a pack of hungry, ravaging wolves.
I don't know what all this is about, but phrased as "Red Hat aggresively
incorporates new Free Software into their products" it sounds rather
nicer.
> This is why Linux will ***ALWAYS*** be inferior to Windows NT/2000. It
> can only be as good as the people who write it, and when they're second
> rate unix hackers, that's the ceiling on the quality level of the
> effort. Anyone who suggest any direction that's not understandble by
> you "gods" gets ignored, knifed, bad mouthed, or character assisinated,
> and if what's proposed is not undergrad unix computer science, you guys
> don't seem to understand it, or care (and you show a definite
> unwillingness to even try).
No. There is a philosophy surrounding Linux and Unix, and your refusal
even to try to appreciate it loses you the ears of many here who would
otherwise offer useful help and insight.
Given the regard in which Alan, Linus, et. al. are help on these lists,
calling them "second rate unix hackers" would lose you friends even if
it were true.
What did anybody at all gain from your posting this vague, unsubstantiated
(hell, it's so content-free as to be basically un_in_stantiated, too)
attack to the list?
> One good example is the VFS in Linux. EVERY release, you guys break
> something or there is MASSIVE file system corruption, or memory
> corruption, or some other catastrophe that takes days to sort out.
> Commercial OS vendors never tolerate this lack of
> quality/compatibility.
Watch NT4 boot. Go on. SP3 claims to be build 1381 or something
(apologies, it's been a long time since I last had to use NT). Just
how many of the the 1378 builds which didn't see the light of day
broke something or caused massive fs corruption?
> I'm sorry if you are offended, and i withdraw the allegations (man
> did I get your dander up -- jeeeeez),
Alan is a very nice guy, with basically infinite patience for those
who are prepared usefully to help themselves. Many of the others on
the list are the same.
> but we are spending money on developing on Linux, and the obvious lack
> of COURTESY, PROFESSIONALISM, and QUALITY increases support effort (I
> have to rewrite the VFS interface EVERYTIME you post a new kernel.
The details may change, but the intentions remain largely the same.
Maybe the NT people got their VFS right in NT4 and didn't have to
change it for W2K. Good for them.
This is Linux, though. We don't have to get everything right the
first time. Once it exists, people use it. Then we make it better.
Think of it as pipelining.
>From your descriptions, the 2.3 VFS looks /more/ like NT's. How that
makes your work harder (given that you clearly favour that platform)
I have no idea.
> You guys are constantly BREAKING stuff and LEAVING IT BROKEN and
> inflicting your laziness and bugs on the entire planet. If a
> Microsoft engineer (or Novell engineer) operated at this level of
> quality, they would have their work heavily scrutinized.
So *fuck off*. Many people might like to use your nwfs, but when
you persist in so fundamentally and rudely misunderstanding Linux
development, you repel them.
> And get over it, would you.
How *dare* you? You posted a bizarre rant attacking Alan for some
perceived injustice inflicted upon you by his employers. You may
have interest in Linux. You may release bits of source code. But
you patently have no interest in the development of Linux, so you
have no place here.
Please desist from posting your vitriol to this list.
Matthew.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 15 2000 - 21:00:14 EST