From owner-freebsd-mobile Mon Mar 8 23:44:41 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (zippy.cdrom.com [204.216.27.228]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2146314D9F for ; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:44:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) Received: from zippy.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA62461; Mon, 8 Mar 1999 23:44:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkh@zippy.cdrom.com) To: Michael Robinson Cc: dkulp@neomorphic.com, freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: compatibility list In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 09 Mar 1999 11:11:07 +0800." <199903090311.LAA18615@netrinsics.com> Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 23:44:22 -0800 Message-ID: <62457.920965462@zippy.cdrom.com> From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > It is not at all difficult to find places where interested parties and > working code have been turned away for failing to meet the gatekeepers' > standards for architectural purity. I think this somewhat oversimplifies the matter and if we could actually examine some of the bits of code you saw "rejected" at this point, we'd quickly see that they destabilized or even flat-out broke other aspects of our desktop/server support. To contrive an example, if you have 11 funky PCCARD modems which require extensive hacks to sio.c but those hacks are also sort of suspect on account of the fact that they're old and cause "unexplained weirdness" with some types of multi-port serial cards that various ISPs use, are we doing the right thing as an ostensibly server-focused OS to accept those changes? Probably not, at least certainly not unconditionally. The same goes double for some of the scarier patches to wd.c and the network drivers. It's not just a matter of declaring open season in /sys/i386/isa and bringing in PAO, it's a matter of figuring out how to integrate it without breaking something *ELSE* in the process. That's all the "architectural purity" I see being called for here, that and some attempt to avoid a profusion of #ifdefs within the code that make it unreadable to anyone else. WE get all the complaints when things are broken or rendered into unclear spaghetti code, but do folks like you jump to our defense when that happens? Generally not. We just get shot at from both sides, whether we run in one direction or the other or simply try to stay in the middle. :) > I'm too busy to do it myself. I thought as much. Get down to the courtyard, it's time for your appointment with the firing squad. :) - Jordan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message