On January 2, 2002 11:50 am, Neil Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday January 2, phillips@bonn-fries.net wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that's all +5 insightful, except... what makes you think any one of the
> > Linux core hackers is irreplaceable? I know you didn't say that, but you
> > did say 'single point of failure', and it amounts to the same thing.
>
> I think that the difference is that there is no planning to make sure
> that no-one is irreplaceable.
Right, it's like the difference between a planned economy and a capitalist
one. People find their own niches in the Linux heirarchy. Except for a few
'official' maintainer positions there is nobody doing any assigning. Surely
there is some irony in this.
> Sure people can be replaced, but it
> might take a while. A subsystem might be unmaintained (or
> under-maintained) for a while until some sucker^Wdeveloper puts their
> hand up. That isn't a situation that a "fortune 500 bureaucracy"
> would be able to tolerate. But we seem to cope.
Yep, we're just lucky ;)
-- Daniel - 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 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:16 EST