Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 07:14:51 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Bill Paul <wpaul@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu> Cc: cgull+usenet-886763413@smoke.marlboro.vt.us (john hood), hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: wd0s1e hard errors Message-ID: <489.886778091@gringo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Feb 1998 10:02:17 EST." <199802061502.KAA27827@skynet.ctr.columbia.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I'm getting _really_ tired of people pointing their fingers at bits > of code and saying: "Oh well, we don't have enough time/resources/brains > to maintain this and I can tell thanks to my vast psychic powers that > nobody's using it anyway, so let's just chop it out of the tree and > throw it away." It happend with the 'unused' networking protocols, > it happened with LFS, and now it's happening with bad144. Whoa Tonto! I think it's important to argue for the preservation of useful stuff, no question, and if bad144 support is still useful at least to SOME people then it should stay in. No problem. Lumping it in with things like LFS, however, only buggers the argument you're trying to advance since LFS *NEVER* worked and had almost no chance of ever working (trust me on this, OK?) so nuking it was a good idea, just as nuking our dysfunctional ISDN code a long time ago was a good idea. Some things should go and some things should stay. Saying that NOTHING should go is just as bogus as saying that everything should go, and you need to be careful to stay away from an extreme position on this one if you're going to argue credibly for the preservation of bad144. > Do _not_ argue this point with me. I don't want to hear it. If you don't want to argue a point then posting it to a public mailing list is the purest folly. If you just want to vent for the sake of venting, open a window instead. :-) Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?489.886778091>