Re: Driver removals

2008-02-16 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:39:08 +0100, Willy Tarreau said: > I don't understand why kernel developers always think that users spend > their whole time testing their new stuff. That is mostly true for a lot > of desktop users, but definitely not for servers. On a server, you may > *ignore* that a new

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-16 Thread Bill Davidsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:08:13 EST, Bill Davidsen said: can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*, guess that model is dead. And the drivers get better because

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-16 Thread David Newall
Adrian Bunk wrote: > Forks are allowed, so when you don't like the way some software is > developed you can always release a version of the software that is in > your eyes better. > What a silly thought. Nobody, I should hope, wants multiple Linuxes competing and diluting the market. That's

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-16 Thread David Newall
Adrian Bunk wrote: Forks are allowed, so when you don't like the way some software is developed you can always release a version of the software that is in your eyes better. What a silly thought. Nobody, I should hope, wants multiple Linuxes competing and diluting the market. That's

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-16 Thread Bill Davidsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:08:13 EST, Bill Davidsen said: can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*, guess that model is dead. And the drivers get better because

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-16 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 08:39:08 +0100, Willy Tarreau said: I don't understand why kernel developers always think that users spend their whole time testing their new stuff. That is mostly true for a lot of desktop users, but definitely not for servers. On a server, you may *ignore* that a new

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-15 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 08:52:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:08:13 EST, Bill Davidsen said: > > > can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have > > always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*, > > guess that

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-15 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 08:08:13PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: >... > If you don't see an ethical problem in removing a working driver which > is not taking support resources, in order to force people to test and > debug a driver they don't now and never would need, so that it might in >

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-15 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:08:13 EST, Bill Davidsen said: > can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have > always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*, > guess that model is dead. And the drivers get better because the Code Fairy comes and

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-15 Thread Bill Davidsen
Adrian Bunk wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:07:41PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: ... In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs* attention I see no reason to replace it.

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-15 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:07:41PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: >>> ... >>> In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs* >>> attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that "it

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-15 Thread Bill Davidsen
Adrian Bunk wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: ... In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs* attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that "it forces people to try the new driver" is a valid reason, being unmaintained

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-15 Thread Bill Davidsen
Adrian Bunk wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: ... In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs* attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that it forces people to try the new driver is a valid reason, being unmaintained is

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-15 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:07:41PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: ... In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs* attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that it forces

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-15 Thread Bill Davidsen
Adrian Bunk wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 02:07:41PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: ... In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs* attention I see no reason to replace it.

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-15 Thread Valdis . Kletnieks
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:08:13 EST, Bill Davidsen said: can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*, guess that model is dead. And the drivers get better because the Code Fairy comes and

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-15 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 08:08:13PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: ... If you don't see an ethical problem in removing a working driver which is not taking support resources, in order to force people to test and debug a driver they don't now and never would need, so that it might in time

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-15 Thread Willy Tarreau
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 08:52:27PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 20:08:13 EST, Bill Davidsen said: can never make you see why technological extortion is evil. People have always moved to new drivers without pushing because they were *better*, guess that model is

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-14 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: >... > In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs* > attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that "it forces > people to try the new driver" is a valid reason, being unmaintained is > only a

Re: Driver removals

2008-02-14 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 09:26:26PM -0500, Bill Davidsen wrote: ... In general, if a driver works and is being used, until it *needs* attention I see no reason to replace it. I don't agree that it forces people to try the new driver is a valid reason, being unmaintained is only a problem

Driver removals

2008-02-13 Thread Bill Davidsen
Just a general thought on removing drivers in general, when a driver is removed because there's a better one, it would be good to have either a message which shows up at "make oldconfig" time, or a file listing the driver(s) which replace it. Half the resistance to removing drivers is finding

Driver removals

2008-02-13 Thread Bill Davidsen
Just a general thought on removing drivers in general, when a driver is removed because there's a better one, it would be good to have either a message which shows up at make oldconfig time, or a file listing the driver(s) which replace it. Half the resistance to removing drivers is finding