Weekly Edition
Return to the Kernel page
| |||||||||||||
Quotes of the week
The overall quality of 2.6.21 is pretty horrific. It saw the
introduction of a lot of new code fundamental to the operation of
the kernel (the tickless stuff for eg), massive updates to areas
such as ACPI, and just to mix things up, we switched from a
known-crap-but-tried-and-tested IDE system to
a-bleeding-edge-but-hopefully-with-signs-of-promise libata based
system. Lots of changes == lots of fallout the first time it goes
into a production OS.
-- Dave Jones
What I am objecting to is this idea that many kernel developers
seem to have, that if there is some aspect of the kernel/user API
that becomes a bit inconvenient for the kernel to implement, then
we can put the blame on the applications that rely on that aspect,
call them names such as "legacy", "abuser", "conceptually buggy",
"broken", etc., and ultimately justify breaking the ABI -- since
it's only those applications that we have demonised that will be
affected, after all.
-- Paul Mackerras
/* I'm told there are only two stories in the world worth telling: love * and hate. So there used to be a love scene here like this: * * Launcher: We could make beautiful I/O together, you and I. * Guest: My, that's a big disk! * * Unfortunately, it was just too raunchy for our otherwise-gentle tale. */ (Log in to post comments)
Quotes of the week Posted Jun 14, 2007 14:13 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] Oh, brilliant: documentation as a game of adventure. Just add some interactivity (easy enough, ask questions about lguest on the way and add some more appropriate makefile targets) and you'll have a real time sink :)
(damn good documentation, too.)
Quotes of the week Posted Jun 14, 2007 19:06 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link] Is it just me or does opensuse do a better job of running with libata (for PATA)?
|
|||||||||||||