Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
kernel API - a little bit less bias, pleasekernel API - a little bit less bias, pleasePosted May 19, 2006 12:48 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1)In reply to: kernel API - a little bit less bias, please by wilck Parent article: The Novell Partner Linux Driver Process I'm sorry if you find the reporting "biased." It is true that I feel a writer's position should be clear, rather than hidden behind some sort of bogus show of neutrality. And my position, formed by years of digging through and messing with kernel code, is that trying to cast the internal ABI in cement would slow and destabilize the whole process. BUT when I report that a stable internal ABI is "just not in the plans," I am being flat-out factual. It is not in the plans, and there is no serious discussion about changing that. How could I have expressed that better?
(Log in to post comments)
kernel API - a little bit less bias, please Posted May 19, 2006 14:25 UTC (Fri) by wilck (subscriber, #29844) [Link] I agree that a writer should state his position. Generally, I like LWN's way of discussing things.
To me, your article conveyed something like "Thy Driver Shall Be In the Tree and Shame on You Who Disagree", and I took it as a cause to dispute that statement.
I may have misinterpreted the tone of your article. I apologize if it is so.
kernel API - a little bit less bias, please Posted May 19, 2006 21:10 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] Maybe it's just because I'm familiar with this writer's style, but I did not take "you do the right thing and ..." to be advice from Jon, but rather his description of the position that the folks in control hold.When LWN reports on a fresh controversy, it usually "argues" both sides in that same style.
|
|||||||||||||