As I have said (which you have removed along with the rest of my arguments)
it works for some because it allows the interface to be in flux. That's
needed for lots of good reasons we both know. And it just happens to be
IMHO, the entire argument for the other side too.
...
> it may be inconvenient for the users to download the large tarball
> with support for 10 different architectures to compile a kernel for
> the x86. However the kernel source is to be managable for the
> _developers_.
No one said users downloading anything was the primary concern...
How this is going to (and already is) having problems scaling is the
issue.
...
> Shell scripting fortunately solves most of that problem, and if I make
> an API change to something, I consider it my responsibility to at
> least try and propagate it to a large part of code in the tree. I
> cannot be bothered to run around searching for obscure drivers on the
> Web though.
missed the point I was making :-( I addressed why solving that particular
problem only most of the time is not a long term sol'n. Looking for
obscure drivers on the web to fix is yet again proof of the argument
on the other side (which is only superficially distribute seperate).
Everything you've said is true and does not change anything. I hate it
when a problem has 2 sides and both are right ;^)
>
> Jes
>
-- Cheers, Jeff / VE3DJF Jeff@RyeHam.ee.ryerson.ca- 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/