-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Andrew Lentvorski wrote: > Not particularly interesting. It just shows that Linus is not a > particularly good manager (been clear for a while), and may not be as > good technically as everybody thought (a bit surprising).
Most people seemed to think he was a great manager and his management skills are part of the reason for the distributed development success of the Linux kernel. I think overall he has done pretty well management-wise except for this scm fiasco. > The fact that Linus doesn't believe in kernel debuggers and forces that > decision on everybody. Nobody else seems to believe in them either as I am not aware of anyone really using one. Linus can't force you to not use a kernel debugger can he? > The whole VM subsystem mess I hear a lot of people complain about the vm but I've never understood why. It has always worked great for me in the stable kernel versions. > Pissing off *lots* of your users by choosing BK when there were > perfectly fine alternatives (Perforce being the primary alternative if > you didn't like any of the open source ones). Linus says that Perforce and many others are not suitable for the massively distributed development effort that is the linux kernel. Does he have a point there? I doubt any Perforce user has so many people all working on the same project scattered all over the world. > my thinking or processes". Why build yet another incompatible source > code system? SVN works. arch works (its incompatibility with Windows > is not a problem for the Linux kernel). darcs works (they regularly > pull the kernel into darcs as a performance test of the system). Based partly on the discussions in this list my company has chosen SVN. Although I liked darcs too. We had originally decided to go with CVS but the improvements that Lan cited plus the nice web interfaces that come with bonuses to us. > I think we are just seeing the fact that folks serving as Lieutenants > under Linus were the true talents behind Linux (actually you just have > to look at how many of those people also commit changes to the *BSD > kernels; it's an eye-opening experience). This tends to be true of any > of the open source projects; however, only some of the leaders realize > this. Any easy way to tell how many authors the BSD and Linux kernels have in common? If you could somehow pull an author list from both, sort, and unique them against each other. - -- Tracy R Reed http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCaFmI9PIYKZYVAq0RAlsHAJ9h9LOrPsrUaoOoF3f7VkVG5LHb3gCfXoyE Prh+pvTOk1auHcddec9FftI= =ZnOm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
