User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Long discussions about long names

Long discussions about long names

Posted May 5, 2009 17:38 UTC (Tue) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
In reply to: Long discussions about long names by qg6te2
Parent article: Long discussions about long names

The point isn't that we don't know why the patch was created, the point is that the creators won't explain themselves. This, to me, should make the patch unacceptable. Full disclosure is essential for "Open Source" (or any collaborative endeavor) to be successful. Accepting this patch would be like having a loaded gun pointing at yourself and then fiddling with the trigger.


(Log in to post comments)

Long discussions about long names

Posted May 5, 2009 22:59 UTC (Tue) by qg6te2 (guest, #52587) [Link]

[T]he point is that the creators won't explain themselves. This, to me, should make the patch unacceptable.

The above is grandstanding. Does it really need to be spelled out why the patch was created?

Accepting this patch would be like having a loaded gun pointing at yourself and then fiddling with the trigger.

I'm not sure I follow. Is there an implication that by accepting the above patch we're implicitly accepting there is a patent problem? I seriously doubt this falls into the arena of a lawyer -- does every patch that goes into the Linux kernel go through a lawyer first?

We're free to modify the kernel however we see fit, and some people would like functionality where long filenames are not created. The reasoning as to why they need it is an orthogonal matter -- the fact that there is a need is sufficient in itself. (It could be argued that things like TOMOYO are a waste of time, yet some people still want it in the kernel.)


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds