From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:41:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:41:33 -0400 Received: from mx3.port.ru ([194.67.57.13]:21765 "EHLO mx3.port.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:41:24 -0400 From: "Samium Gromoff" <_deepfire@mail.ru> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Will 2.6 require Python for any configuration ? (CML2) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: mPOP Web-Mail 2.19 X-Originating-IP: [195.34.27.173] Reply-To: "Samium Gromoff" <_deepfire@mail.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Message-Id: Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 00:41:39 +0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hey guys, can`t resist more this thread... =) 1. I heard a lot of arguments why _not_ to include python. Also alot of arguments why _ignore_ the arguments to _not_ include python. BUT! No arguments why to _include_ it... kinda disbalance as i see. 2. Those who tells that playing with 21M large kernel isnt any better than playing with kernel PLUS 20M python are, politely saying, definitely not right. 3. i ALREADY cannot tolerate how current config heartbrakingly slow crawls on my p166. No, do not ask me why is it so. just think: we have 3k strings, 3k deps, and asketic ncurses interface. So WHY is it so slow? And you think python-powered config engine will be at least _approachingly_ tolerable on an 386??? Nah. It wont. What we win in the true C way: speed, size What we lose --------=-------: maintainability?????? (i`ll believe if esr will tell so...) --- cheers, Samium Gromoff