I would just like to note that from now on, everybody who just says "Look
at how they're doing it at *BSD, let's copy them", without in any way
quentifying why this would be better or worth the time, is going to end up
into my procmail-filters. No, I do not except this to be a great deterrent
and except everybody to quit doing it in horror, but neither seems
constantly complaining about this seem to be.
So once again, for rehearsal: Just because *BSD does it, doesn't mean it's
the only way for Linux to go. Not in specific kernel issues, not in
general software engineering practices. Anybody suggesting so is being
silly, or on the wrong list. Linux is so different, that even if it works
for *BSD, it may well not work for Linux - and everything *BSD does isn't
automaically the best way to go even for *BSD. Besides, variety is one of
the greatest strengths of open source.
That having been said, I nor I am sure nobody else has any problems with
analyzing a problem in detail, coming up with a well reasoned solution,
suggesting and implementing it. But just blindly copying anything that
*BSD does is so obiviously broken that I wonder why people have to keep
repeating it here. You'd think most people on this list don't think *BSD
is God.
Case-in-point example: I can name numerous treatises refering to Linux as
an example of succesful open source development project. Perhaps it's my
limited viewpoint, but beyond a number of *BSD-zealots I've met foaming
at the mouth in person, I've never seen anybody use *BSD's as example of
effective open source development. Which, again, doesn't mean we don't
have anything to learn from them, but that one should exercise criticism
in copying them, and reason it by something else than "because *BSD does
it".
-Donwulff
-
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/