linux-kernel - Re: Designers and Builders (was: Who wants to maintain KR list for stable releases?)

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <200708301750.20873.a1426z@gawab.com>
Date:	Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:50:20 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <a1426z@...ab.com>
To:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Designers and Builders (was: Who wants to maintain KR list for stable releases?)

Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 04:54:24PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 07:31:24AM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > > Adrian Bunk wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Tracking feature or implementation suggestions wouldn't make
> > > > > sense. Consider e.g. that there are several people on linux-kernel
> > > > > who often write what they think the kernel should do but who never
> > > > > write a single line of code themselves. There's no value in
> > > > > tracking such stuff.
> > > >
> > > > There are designers, and there are builders.
> > > >
> > > > Can you tell me who is more important?
> > >
> > > That's a distinction that doesn't exist in practice:
> > >
> > > Designing kernel features requires good knowledge of the area of the
> > > kernel that should be changed.
> > >
> > > IOW: If you don't have the skills to implement it yourself you don't
> > > have the skills to do any good design.
> >
> > I might agree with you on this wrt hacking around the kernel, but when
> > it comes to introducing new subsystems, then we have a two fold
> > situation:
> >
> >   1.  Designing the internals of the new subsystem
> >   2.  Interfacing it with the rest of the kernel
> >
> > Part 1 is completely independent of the implementation, it's part 2 that
> > needs intricate implementation knowledge.
>
> That's a perfect approach that works NOT.
>
> Your subsystem needs to interact with the VFS or the block layer or
> whatever else parts of the kernel.
>
> If you had ever written kernel code you would have known that your
> statement wasn't true.
>
> > We recently had an example of this:  kexec based hibernation
> >
> > So, what's wrong with tapping into people's design suggestions, and
> > allowing others to implement it?
>
> People soon realize that you are making a fool of yourself when your
> suggestions show that you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
>
> There's nothing wrong if this is the desired effect...

I really didn't expect this kind of a response, but I guess when somebody 
runs out of arguments, then that's probably one of the responses to expect.

Really sad.


Thanks anyway!

--
Al

-
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/