Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 13:34:50 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: drivers for desktop hardware monitoring chips Message-ID: <507A954A.4030505@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <1775.1349467612@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <1775.1349467612@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 05/10/2012 23:06 Poul-Henning Kamp said the following: > In message <506F06FA.4050804@FreeBSD.org>, Andriy Gapon writes: > >> Especially I do not want to call it _the_ "Sensors Framework". > > It doesn't really matter what you call it, it still sucks :-) The code that lets me do something still sucks less than the code that doesn't exist ;-) > See also: > http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=1863154+0+archive/2002/freebsd-current/20021006.freebsd-current Interesting read! But really, I do not have an impression that the code in question deserves any philosophical discussion. There is a famous quote about premature optimization - could there be such a thing as premature "infrastructurization"? That is, trying to generalize something to an infrastructure level when there is no compelling reason to do that. I mean that the fact that we live these many years without not much of sensors code, let alone sensors framework, is pretty telling. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?507A954A.4030505>