Just a thought that popped into my head

Alex Kloss alex at Stud-Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE
Wed May 8 02:22:33 PDT 2002


On Wed, 8 May 2002, Ian Molton wrote:

> On Wed, 8 May 2002 08:27:33 +0200 (CEST)
> Alex Kloss <alex at Stud-Mailer.Uni-Marburg.DE> wrote:
>
> > > They know a LOT more about the issue than you or I (Im a kernel
> > > developer, but a relatively new one).
> >
> > Being a kernel developer brings you so much knowledge... Am I the only
> > one seeing this is not an argument
>
> Er. I /did/ point out that I am a /new/ kernel developer, didnt I? Ie.
> not as knowledgeable as some. The point is that I (currently) defer to
> the wisdom of someone who can work out problems I might have gotten
> stuck on.

Like Gerard, I don't accept "wisdom" only by the appearance. If someone is
meant to be "wise", he'll have to prove it by sharing this wisdom. Your
statement had no wisdom in it, only the appearance it.
>
> > Another thing I'm spotting: neither kernel nor gcc developers are a
> > coherent mass. They are Individuals, each of them with an own opinion.
>
> And when many of them share an opinion, people should take notice,
> then...

...then they can decide on their own whether to share it too or not. And
as you stated, it's only an opinion.
>
> > > I could 'prove' that its OK top drive a van through a brick wall,
> > > but that doesnt mean its a good idea. But hey, the van got through
> > > ok, so I neednt use my driveway gate again...
> >
> > I'd like to see you proving that. No offense meant, but you need a
> > very stable van to drive through a brick wall, unless the wall is
> > faked...
>
> I was thinking landrover. You'd probably knacker the radiator, though...

This is almost a tank...
>
> > Another thing is that you keep on not reading what the rest of us
> > writes: we don't want to make LFS unstable, but we want to test,
> > before we dismiss the usage of gcc-3.1.
>
> Fine, TEST away. but something being TESTED is by definition unstable
> (until proven otherwise. you cant say 'gcc is stable now the version is
> 3.1', it just doesnt work like that (witness kernel 2.4.10 (and
> others)...).
>
> use KNOWN WORKING code for the book, and let people TEST at THEIR OWN
> RISK.

You still don't read properly. We're just about to do that. We just want
to make sure if the new gcc can be classified as "KNOWN WORKING" (known by
us, not by any other authority)...

Alex

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list