From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 24 16:35:43 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B847016A4CE for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:35:43 -0800 (PST) Received: from helios.earthmagic.org (helios.earthmagic.org [198.78.66.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A5143D2F for ; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 16:35:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from lonewolf-freebsd@earthmagic.org) Received: (qmail 42282 invoked from network); 25 Jan 2004 00:35:41 -0000 Received: from ppp150-135.lns1.mel2.internode.on.net (HELO earthmagic.org) (lonewolf@150.101.150.135) by helios.earthmagic.org with RC4-MD5 encrypted SMTP; 25 Jan 2004 00:35:41 -0000 Message-ID: <40130F5A.1060709@earthmagic.org> Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 11:35:38 +1100 From: Johny Mattsson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030524 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: current@freebsd.org References: <44827.1074974041@critter.freebsd.dk> <200401242031.i0OKVD8A037265@apollo.backplane.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: DragonflyBSD kernel clock improvements X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 00:35:43 -0000 Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Perhaps you should be more open to the idea that if > you don't understand it, it's probably very hard to get right, That can certainly be true. But perhaps we should also be more open to the possibility that some code will have accumulated cruft over the years and might be better off with a re-write (I am not saying this might be one of those areas - I haven't looked). I would also say that there is no need for us to pick on someone who's willing to sit down and re-write something in a potentially better* way. We tend to shoot ideas down with "show us the patches"; I don't think we should also shoot them down with "your patches will suck even if you do write them". Let's wait with the judgment until we see the results. If the reimplementation works as well or better than what we have, then it's something that we can gain from. If it doesn't, well, we haven't lost anything, and the reimplementer will be all the wiser for having made the attempt. I'm sure most of us (who code) have reinvented a few wheels each in our days, even if some were square ones, and done only for the joy/amusement/curiosity of seeing if it could be done any better. Personally, I see that as a driving factor in writing good software. If we always just settled for something that just works on the surface and is "good enough" for the common case, we wouldn't have very reliable systems, imho. I realize there's a history between Matt and FreeBSD, but let's not pick on each other unnecessarily. Let's just work towards making each of the BSDs the best it can be. :) Cheers, /Johny, acting mediator (or is that meddler?) *) Better being such things as improved code clarity, efficiency, accuracy, etc. -- Johny Mattsson - System Designer ,-. ,-. ,-. There is no truth. http://www.earthmagic.org _.' `-' `-' There is only perception.