mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net>
To: yarick@it-territory.ru
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Linux drivers management
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:30:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1139254221.20009.43.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> (raw)

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2595 bytes --]

> Hi,
> On 6 February 2006 21:31, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > Since you invoke end-users I'll answer.
> > 
> > This end-user is mad at hell at people like you that advocate separating
> > drivers from mainline.
> Huh...
> > Do you really think us end-users enjoy hunting your drivers all over the
> > net because you never bothered pushing them to mainline ?
> He don't needs to "bother".

Sometimes yes.
But even in these cases if *he* does not want to merge in mainline *he*
needn't invoke end-user wishes to justify himself. (I didn't answer its
other points. I *did* answer the "end-users want drivers to be separate"
bit)

> He wrote the drivers. And you never paid him.

If he was paid or helped by the hardware manufacturer to write the
driver I *did* pay him

> (Take it, "this software is beer-free" overusers, straight in your face).
> > 
> [Loads of "I'm actually proving his point, but I want to be in mainstream, so..." \
> skipped] You have just nicely proved all the stable API pros. 

Nah.
I've just proved taking drivers out-of-tree only pushes problems to
end-users. You are right when drivers are in mainline some of the burden
is reported to driver writers only:

1. they have the free support of other kernel people (reviews,
mentoring, adaptations to some kernel changes)
2. they have the free support of the kernel infrastructure (issue
system, mailing lists, hosting, testing)
3. they have the free support of distributions that package their
changes automatically
4. they can actually influence the decisions that will change the kernel
bits they depend on (just by being their their code is taken into
account)
5. they have tools knowledge and docs to deal with it
6. they are focused on their drivers while end-users have a whole system
to care about and little time to master each of its parts

And anyway do you really think a poll which asks end-users whether they
want stuff to be done by device writers or by themselves will find a
majority for "push problems to users" motions ?

The original assertion I responded to being "users clamour for
out-of-tree drivers"

You may want kernel rules change to accommodate your activity as driver
writer (just guessing, you're not answering like a user). Only :
1. do not hide between end-users you won't find them sympathetic to your
cause. Especially if you try to make them hostage to your claims.
2. the rules where written by a boatload of other kernel people so I
doubt they'd be so hard on you if you tried to follow them

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot

[-- Attachment #2: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

             reply	other threads:[~2006-02-06 19:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-02-06 19:30 Nicolas Mailhot [this message]
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-02-07  4:42 linux
2006-02-07 16:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2006-02-07 19:45   ` David Chow
2006-02-07 20:03     ` Kyle Moffett
2006-02-07 22:15     ` Theodore Ts'o
2006-02-08  0:52       ` David Chow
2006-02-08  4:02         ` Theodore Ts'o
2006-02-08  9:46         ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2006-02-09  6:09       ` Lee Revell
2006-02-08  1:06     ` Alan Cox
2006-02-08  8:26     ` Denis Vlasenko
2006-02-11 18:47     ` Andrew James Wade
2006-02-06 18:31 Nicolas Mailhot
2006-02-06 18:56 ` Yaroslav Rastrigin
2006-02-06 19:02 ` Joshua Kugler
2006-02-06 19:17   ` Yaroslav Rastrigin
2006-02-06 19:39     ` Martin Mares
2006-02-06 19:56       ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2006-02-06 19:53     ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2006-02-06 20:04     ` Jesper Juhl
2006-02-06 23:52     ` Bernd Petrovitsch
2006-02-06 19:21   ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2006-02-06 19:46     ` Michael Krufky
2006-02-06 19:58     ` Nicolas Mailhot
2006-02-06 23:16 ` Gene Heskett
2006-02-06  9:45 David Chow
2006-02-06 10:05 ` Michal Schmidt
2006-02-06 16:50   ` David Chow
2006-02-06 16:55     ` Randy.Dunlap
2006-02-06 19:45     ` Alan Cox
2006-02-06 19:46     ` Jesper Juhl
2006-02-06 10:08 ` Jes Sorensen
2006-02-06 16:52   ` David Chow
2006-02-06 17:03     ` Pedro Alves
2006-02-06 17:35     ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2006-02-06 17:42     ` Jes Sorensen
2006-02-06 16:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-02-07 11:36   ` Denis Vlasenko
2006-02-07 13:22     ` Christoph Hellwig
2006-02-06 19:51 ` Greg KH
2006-02-06 21:38 ` Jim Crilly

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1139254221.20009.43.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org \
    --to=nicolas.mailhot@laposte.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yarick@it-territory.ru \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®