Re: [PATCH] 2.5.17 /dev/ports

From:	 Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>
To:	 Martin Dalecki <dalecki@evision-ventures.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.5.17 /dev/ports
Date:	 Thu, 23 May 2002 12:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Cc:	 Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>


On Thu, 23 May 2002, Martin Dalecki wrote:
> 
> Hey and finally if someone want's to use /dev/port for
> developement on some slow control experimental hardware for example.
> Why doesn't he just delete the - signs at the front lines
> of the patch deleting it plus module register/unregister trivia and
> compile it as a *separate* character device module ?

That's not a productive approach, Martin.

Yes, with open source you can do whatever you want.

HOWEVER, there is a huge amount of advantage to having a common base that 
is big enough to matter: why do you think MS does well commercially? 

It's important to _not_ have to force people to do site-specific (or 
problem-specific) hacks, even if they could do so. Because having to have 
site-specific hacks detracts from the general usability of the code.

So when simplifying, it's not just important to say "we could do without 
this". You have to also say "and nobody can reasonably expect to need it".

Which doesn't seem to be the case with /dev/ports. So it stays.

		Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/