Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Davidsen)
> >Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I took Bill Davidsen out of the list as the email address [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> is bad and is bounced since half a year.
>
> >What he means is that his site triggers the SPAM filters, even though it
> >works fine for others including debian.org, so he decided unilaterally
>
> So you should correct your spam filters!
There is nothing wrong with them.
> Why don't you do this. Your mailer problem is present for a long time
> and I even asked you at east once for the reason.
I have asked you to stop copying me, too, but I haven't tried to
remove you from the list because you continue to do so.
> >I thought you were on another continent, it sounds as f your on a
> >diferent planet. Looking at standard RAM in the USA, try 64MB normal,
> >less than that on budget models. A number of Dell and Compaq models seem
> >to have 512MB as the max, not the standard.
>
> In our research institute nobody bought a PC with less that 512 MB in 2001.
> Asking perople abouth their private PC's, I know that nobod bought less than
> 128 MB for a PC that is new this year.
I assume that someone buys the PCs with 64MB, major retailers sell
them by both store and mail order. The point is that 512MB is not the
standard, and is not relevant to changing the Linux kernel.
> Telling me that you like it the way it currently is on Linux is no argument.
> I gave you enough arguments why Linux kernel defaults should be changed.
> If you have arguments against, please explain them - you are welcome.
> But please don't tell me that 'I like it the way it is' is an argument.
You still miss the issue. The argument for not changing is that (a) few
people feel the need for the change, (b) the kernel developers are
working at other things they think are important, and (c) any major
change like this would require user education, changes in configuration,
and don't belong in a stable release. Maybe this will be in 2.6 someday.
> People send me private mail if they have problems. One solution may be to
> commentless forward this mail to you and Alan Cox .....
Since neither of us is IDE or SCSI maintainer, that would just be
spite, not trying to get anything accomplished.
> > What more than read do you need for a CD-ROM? My drives all have a
> >convenient button to eject media, which is handy because I use my hand
> >to pick up the CD and my finger is right there. As I found out once, by
> >using software eject you can stick the tray right out where someone can
> >bang into it.
>
> Open/close tray, lock tray, read audio, read toc, change error recovery parameters
> and a lot more.
You know, my music sounds fine, I guess I just can't hear them. In
case you missed the point, data CDs and playing music work fine on IDE
without all the stuff you consider important.
>
> >> >>You are saying the same thing as Alan Cox:
> >> >>
> >> >> Let us keep the bugs in ide-scsi & the SCSI cdrom driver on Linux because
> >> >> I do not realize any problem for _my_ personal work.
More to the point, because there is no compelling reason to change it,
and problems described above which result from it.
> > Isn't this just about exactly what you say when someone asks for a
> >feature you don't need? Some version of "I have better things to do with
> >my time?" So do the Linux developers, things they think are more useful,
> >either to them or the vast majority of users who don't care at all if
> >some obscure SCSI command is implemented. Particularly since many ATAPI
> >device have broken firmware for features not used frequently, as you
> >have rightly pointed out.
>
> So you are going to convince me to stop with my attempt to make Linux easier
> to use and just forward any mail to you and Alan. I hope that at least then
> you will realize that there is a problem that needs to be solved.
Would you be unhappy is a few people wrote bad things about you
several times a week saying your software was crap and broken because
your option handling is bizarre and confusing because you refuse to
adopt the conventions used in other software? Or because you don't
support some obscure feature, or can't do DOA using raw, or... whatever?
Would that piss you off after someone whined about it over and over like
a three year old who thinks he will get what he wants because he is so
obnoxious?
Well it pisses us off, too. It doesn't work that way, it won't get a
major change before 2.6 (except maybe in test versions), and ide-cd is
likely to be the standard even if things do change, just because people
are tired of hearing you whine!
--
-bill davidsen ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
last possible moment - but no longer" -me
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
