| |||||||||||||
Intel and XMirIntel and XMirPosted Sep 13, 2013 10:50 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307)In reply to: Intel and XMir by robclark Parent article: Intel and XMir
You started your response with an ad hominem fallacious attack:
> I'm sorry if you don't understand sw engineering and QA (or possibly not even looked at the patch)
and ended it in an slippery slope fallacious attack:
> And having the patch merged implies it is intel's problem to deal with when the code breaks.
I'm sorry, but if there is any truth in between, it's not worth it.
(Log in to post comments)
Intel and XMir Posted Sep 13, 2013 13:49 UTC (Fri) by robclark (subscriber, #74945) [Link]
Fair enough, not much substance to the counter-argument. But there really wasn't much substance to the "This is BS" argument that I was countering. How do you argue with someone who is claiming the sky is green? It just isn't!
It doesn't cost intel nothing to maintain and QA the patch. Maybe someone from canonical will send patches after the fact when things break. That doesn't really help for QA'ing releases. And since this is something that intel funds, it is their decision to make.
|
|||||||||||||