On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:14:20PM +0000, Creamy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 08:05:47PM +0000, Miod Vallat wrote:
> > > In fact, to everybody else who is reading this, doesn't it just point out
> > > that 486 support is, effectively, already broken, (as I suspected),
> > > because the devices that typically go with machines of that era are
> > > suffering bit-rot in the tree?
> > 
> > Absolutely not. First, 80486 support is not broken (but an FPU is
> > required);
> You mis-understand, I am fully aware that the CPU itself is fully
> supported - my point was that it's likely that any 486 as a whole
> is more than likely to contain hardware that has issues which are
> going un-noticed because people are not using the code.
> > second, isa drivers receiving few, if any, attention, doesn't
> > mean they are no longer working.
> Where did I claim that, exactly?
> > Ever heard of `if it ain't broke, don't
> > touch it'?
> Well, maybe Alexey would have been happy for somebody to touch his
> SCSI driver and fix it, why don't you do it for him?  Somebody
> broke it almost 20 releases ago, and guess what, from what I can
> gather it's still broken.
> So, if it IS broken, DO fix it.
> > Or are you just trolling for the sake of it?
> I didn't expect that from you, frankly.  Other people have been
> rude to me off-list, but I thought you were above that.
> Really, this community has an attitude problem - and you *need*
> more developers, believe me, you shouldn't be trying to scare
> them away.

People who think we have an attitude problem self-evidently will
be unlikely to fit in as developers. Or should we dissemble and
surprise them with our attitude when they become developers? Because
the attitude doesn't change much when one gets the magic decoder

.... Ken

> -- 
> Creamy

Reply via email to