linux-kernel - Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1

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]

Message-ID: <46B01E3F.6050401@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:46:39 +0800
From:	Carlo Florendo <subscribermail@...il.com>
To:	Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	jos poortvliet <jos@...nkamer.nl>, ck@....kolivas.org,
	Michael Chang <thenewme91@...il.com>,
	Kasper Sandberg <lkml@...anurb.dk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1

Roman Zippel wrote:
> When Ingo posted his rewrite http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/13/180, Con had 
> already pretty much lost. I have no doubt that Ingo can quickly transform 
> an idea into working code and I would've been very surprised if he 
> wouldn't be able to turn it into something technically superior. When Ingo 
> figured out how to implement fair scheduling in a better way, he didn't 
> use this idea to help Con to improve his work. He decided instead to 
> work against Con and started his own rewrite, this is of course his right 
> to do, but then he should also accept the responsibility that Con felt his 
> years of work ripped apart and in vain and we have now lost a developer 
> who tried to address things from a different perspective.

When Ingo wrote something that went head-on with what Con wrote, it was his 
prerogative to do so.  There's no speaking here of rights to do or not to 
do since as matter of evidence, in the open source world, that which is 
superior (i.e. code, function, not person) has the right to exist and the 
inferior to die away.  Did Ingo have the obligation to improve Con's work? 
  Definitely not.  Did Con have a right to get Ingo's improvements or 
suggestions? Definitely not.  There are no such rights in this open source 
development framework (TM).

What Ingo did, I think, was what he wanted and he has the right to do that. 
       I believe that Ingo does not have an obligation to be responsible 
for what Con felt.  You feel what you feel because you choose to feel that 
way. Let us remember that "Happiness is a choice, not a state."

And let's just look at the attitudes on how both Ingo and Con reacted to 
the issues regarding their respective schedulers.  I won't list them here 
now since they're all there in the archives.

Since attitude also plays a big part in getting your code in mainline, I 
think we would know the reason why one got chosen for the other.

Thank you very much.

Best Regards,

Carlo

-- 
Carlo Florendo
Softare Engineer/Network Co-Administrator
Astra Philippines Inc.
UP-Ayala Technopark, UP Campus Diliman
1101 Quezon City, Philippines
http://www.astra.ph

--
The Astra Group of Companies
5-3-11 Sekido, Tama City
Tokyo 206-0011, Japan
http://www.astra.co.jp
-
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/