On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 05:44:38PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> > Even better, if you yourself took action to correct this regression it
> > would be as welcome as any other Linux development activity.
>
> It seems to me that what would be even better than patches is a
> general awareness of bloat and an attitude discouraging adding any
> bloat whatsoever to the base kernel. Proactive bloat prevention is a
> much better solution than asking embedded developers to send fixes
> whenever someone increases the size of the core kernel unnecessarily.
> Let's prevent a Mozilla here.
So lemme guess, you calling "embedded" == "Mozilla" ?
This is the reason those developers do not submit patches and fixes?
Under that rational, why not unplug the support for the embedded archs?
This follows your line of reasoning perfectly?
So you are proposing to unbloat the kernel by not fixing and patch archs
which embedded people depend on?
Thus letting then rot and die then final removal of baggage?
Sarcasim and Humor,
Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group
-
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 Oct 07 2002 - 22:00:56 EST