[2508] in SIPB_Linux_Development
Re: Kernel interface changes (was Re: cdrecord problems on
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Weinehall)
Fri Feb 5 05:58:41 1999
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 1999 11:58:20 +0100 (MET)
From: David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Cc: Derek Atkins <warlord@MIT.EDU>, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
khim@sch57.msk.ru, arvinds@MIT.EDU, xiphmont@MIT.EDU,
linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, linux-dev@MIT.EDU, jered@MIT.EDU,
nemo@MIT.EDU, cox@idecnet.com
In-Reply-To: <199902050337.WAA21930@dcl>
On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
[snip]
> It's important to remember that when we make gratuitous changes that
> seem to have very little benefit besides forcing kernel modules to get
> recompiled, it's not screwing over IBM. IBM/Transarc wasn't making a
> penny from the Linux AFS port. It screwed over MIT users --- MIT users
> who need AFS access so they can access their Project Athena files from
> their Linux boxes in their dorm rooms ---- MIT users who said, "Why is
> it that NetBSD doesn't have these problems in their stable kernel; only
> Linux seems to consistently break things?"
How come, that if IBM doesn't make a penny from AFS, they don't release
the source, so that we can include it in the kernel?!!?!
> And as a result, I've seen more than a few MIT users decide to give up
> on Linux and move over to NetBSD. I think this is bad, and I'm hoping
> we can take just a little bit more care in the 2.2 series than we did in
> the 2.0 series. Is that really too much to ask?
No, I think this is definitely a legit request. But I also think that
Linus is very determined to do this. He has been very restrictive with
v2.2 patches so far.
/David Weinehall
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
