Date: Wed, 12 Mar 1997 11:19:15 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Cc: terry@lambert.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au, freebsd-platforms@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Kernel layout reshuffle (Was: Re: FAQ?) Message-ID: <199703121819.LAA27688@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199703120528.WAA10606@rocky.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Mar 11, 97 10:28:45 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > It would be nice if the structure of the source tree did not > > actively oppose porting to other platforms. > > That has nothing to do with Richard's proposals. Thankfully, Richard has corrected you better than I could have on his behalf. > Terry, I find it *really* annoying when you exaggerate peoples > ideas and somewho shoe-horn them into your 'grand scheme' for > unifying the world. You've done this with my work somehow making > the PCCARD patches the salvation to autoconfiguration, This isn't true. They aren't because they aren't in a larger framework; they also aren't because they require too much opportunity for pilot error in configuration, and they aren't because they are not a subelement in a larger design. Whish is not to say that they shouldn't be a subelement ina larger design. What they *are* is a first model for a device arrival/departure framework in which the arrival and departure of devices will not affect the overall ability of the machine to continue running. Even if that model is not the final model, the goal of allowing dynamic reconfiguration is a worthy one, and should be pursued in other areas of the kernel, and the PCCARD stuff should be a component in the overall framework designed to meet this goal. > you're doing it with Richard's (which is/was keep the build tree > only dependant on the sources in the build tree, which may in fact > break multi-platform support), I think you give Richard too little credit. If I remember correctly, Richards suggestion that he fix the make system *came out of* a porting discussion. I will also point out that this discussion was never sent to Richard on a side band: he very obviously has a presence on the -platforms list, where this discussion is taking place. > and many others projects. Name them; I will be happy to refute them on a case-by-case basis. > Exagerrating the significance of things only makes you look silly, and > angers me because it makes the developers who don't 'INTEGRATE THESE > OBVIOUS GOOD THINGS' look petty and foolish, which in fact you are for > implying this. There is "obvious to Terry" and there is "obvious to the rest of the world". I freely admit this. I believe I am a deep thinker, and that believing this is not hubris. I believe that a number of things that have not been integrated *are* 'OBVIOUS GOOD THINGS', and I believe that some of the developers involved in the decisions *are* foolish for not seeing the "obvious to Terry" (not seeing the obvious does not make one petty, however). > Grow up and act professionally, and not like someone whose not allowed > to play with someone else's toys and mopes in a corner, On the contrary; I could easily start a "TerryBSD", or go over to the OpenBSD or NetBSD camp and start integrating FreeBSD code left and right. To a large extent, porting FreeBSD to the Alpha and HP3xx platforms is exactly that. A merger by fiat. But I *am* a professional, and I have a good understanding of the social structures on which I would be operating, so I have chosen the path most likely to succeed in the long term. To do otherwise would *truly* make me out the childish fool you imply. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199703121819.LAA27688>