linux-kernel - Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:41:25 +0200
From:	mws@...sted-brains.org
To:	David Newall <davidn@...idnewall.com>
CC:	Tarkan Erimer <tarkan@...one.net.tr>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Slow DOWN, please!!!

David Newall schrieb:
> Tarkan Erimer wrote:
>> I completely disagree with your foolish and nonsense comments about
>> the Linux Kernel and the Linux OS. It's perfectly clear that you
>> didn't understand well enough how the linux development process works.
>> If you thought that the recently released kernels are not stable then,
>> you have to wait the 2.6.x.y series or you can use the distro kernels.
>> All of your comments are pointless and no base. You are free to choose
>> BSD or whatever you want to use. No one is putting a gun on your head
>> to use Linux :-)
> 
> The problem is not exactly faults in recently released kernels, rather
> that introduction of faults is common when it should be rare, and
> kernels are released as stable when they are fragile.  Ignoring a
> problem, and not caring if they migrate to BSD, is foolishness.  Of
> course you don't want people to migrate to BSD, so don't pretend that
> you don't care.
> 
>> Do you think really think that BSD license is more free as making a
>> fool of you ?
> 
> It is a matter of transparent fact that BSD's licence is less
> restrictive than Linux's.  Whether that is desirable is not something
> that need be discussed at this juncture.  My point in raising BSD was
> that, from a commercial point of view, BSD is attractive in a way that
> Linux is not.  The many commercial vendors who have been taken to task
> for not honouring their GPL obligations are strong demonstrations of
> that.  Do not pretend that Linux is sacrosanct.  BSD would be an easy
> swap for vendors should Linux gain a reputation for poor quality (and it
> already runs Linux applications.)
> 
> Reputations snowball.  By the time anybody notices that a good one has
> become tarnished it could be too late, and take too long, to rectify. 
> I'm sure somebody else observed approximately this just yesterday, so
> it's not just me, is it?
> 
> I won't champion this because it's unimportant to me.  Linux's quality
> problems are not my problems.  I do what I can to help Linux, but I'm
> not religious about operating systems and I know that good, free
> operating systems will continue to thrive, even if Linux's dies, just as
> they did before Linux was born.
> 
> Ignore the problem, even shoot the messenger, if you like; or be adult,
> consider the proposition dispassionately, and take steps from there.
> 
> I've said my bit, in fact more than I wanted to, so I choose to stop here.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
within all time you spent up here to discuss nonsense (from my pov it is),

several bugfixes, regression fixes, new drivers, ... have been done or started.

lets concentrate back on what counts - shouldn't we?

my 2ct
marcel


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/