[gentoo-user] Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[gentoo-user] Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[pk]

Hi,

Happened upon this interview with Linus Torvalds that some of you might
find interesting (if you haven't seen it already):

http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Linus-Torvalds-s-Lessons-on-Software-Development-Management/ba-p/440

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Michael Mol]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:37 PM, pk <peterk2@coolmail.se> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Happened upon this interview with Linus Torvalds that some of you might
> find interesting (if you haven't seen it already):
>
> http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Linus-Torvalds-s-Lessons-on-Software-Development-Management/ba-p/440

Yeah, I just saw that. Admittedly, when I saw this section:

--begin-section--

I'll add at this point that this isn't just a programmer problem. I've
seen entire companies get locked into the idea that “perfecting” the
program was everything. They then neglected what the users wanted from
the program, supporting the users and so on. Most of us who've been in
the business for a while have seen this cycle play out over and over
again.

Expanding on that second point, Torvalds says that's why the Linux
kernel team is “so very anal about the whole ‘no regressions’ thing,
for example. Breaking the user experience in order to ‘fix’ something
is a totally broken concept; you cannot do it. If you break the user
experience, you may feel that you have ‘fixed’ something in the code,
but if you fixed it by breaking the user, you just violated that
second point; you thought the code was more important than the user.
Which is not true.”

--end-section--

I immediately thought of the udev thread.

-- 
:wq

[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-09-26, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:37 PM, pk <peterk2@coolmail.se> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Happened upon this interview with Linus Torvalds that some of you might
>> find interesting (if you haven't seen it already):
>>
>> http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Linus-Torvalds-s-Lessons-on-Software-Development-Management/ba-p/440
>
> Yeah, I just saw that. Admittedly, when I saw this section:
>
> --begin-section--
[...]
>  Breaking the user experience in order to ???fix??? something
>  is a totally broken concept; you cannot do it.

That's hilarious.

The Linux developers are _constantly_ changing APIs in ways that break
existing device driver code.  There are repeatedly wholesale
re-designs of some APIs that happen between minor versions of a
supposedly "stable" kernel.

We have to touch our NetBSD and FreeBSD drivers maybe once every 3-4
years.  Often our Linux drivers have to be updated every 3-4 _months_
to keep up with changes in the kernel that break things.

I suppose one could try to claim that people who ship Linux drivers
for their hardware aren't "users" of the kernel, and therefore our
dealing with such breakage isn't a "user experience".

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Everybody is going
                                  at               somewhere!!  It's probably
                              gmail.com            a garage sale or a disaster
                                                   Movie!!

Re: [gentoo-user] Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[James Broadhead]

On 26 September 2011 20:44, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I just saw that. Admittedly, when I saw this section:
>
> --begin-section--
>
> I'll add at this point that this isn't just a programmer problem. I've
> seen entire companies get locked into the idea that “perfecting” the
> program was everything. They then neglected what the users wanted from
> the program, supporting the users and so on. Most of us who've been in
> the business for a while have seen this cycle play out over and over
> again.
>
> Expanding on that second point, Torvalds says that's why the Linux
> kernel team is “so very anal about the whole ‘no regressions’ thing,
> for example. Breaking the user experience in order to ‘fix’ something
> is a totally broken concept; you cannot do it. If you break the user
> experience, you may feel that you have ‘fixed’ something in the code,
> but if you fixed it by breaking the user, you just violated that
> second point; you thought the code was more important than the user.
> Which is not true.”
>
> --end-section--
>
> I immediately thought of the udev thread.

The only problem with that attitude is that it eventually leads you to
the same position that Microsoft is in with Windows -- where too many
years of refusing to drop backwards compatibility were completely
holding them back. The direction that they took with Windows XP, drop
raw DOS support, release-freeze (9 years!), gather bug reports, fix
bugs(!), has actually left them with a pretty stable and functional OS
in Windows 7 (The release candidate was not quite as strong).

If you read the Old New Thing, you will still find some absolute
madness left in there to maintain support for Win3.1 programs, and
hacked around in some really awful ways.

Breaking User Experience is a major factor of open-source, it's
iterative though, and the general consensus is that each generation of
software improves on the previous one (that said, I'm pretty worried
about the directions of both gnome3 and kde4).

Re: [gentoo-user] Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:37 PM, pk <peterk2@coolmail.se> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Happened upon this interview with Linus Torvalds that some of you might
>> find interesting (if you haven't seen it already):
>>
>> http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Linus-Torvalds-s-Lessons-on-Software-Development-Management/ba-p/440
>
> Yeah, I just saw that. Admittedly, when I saw this section:
>
> --begin-section--
>
> I'll add at this point that this isn't just a programmer problem. I've
> seen entire companies get locked into the idea that “perfecting” the
> program was everything. They then neglected what the users wanted from
> the program, supporting the users and so on. Most of us who've been in
> the business for a while have seen this cycle play out over and over
> again.
>
> Expanding on that second point, Torvalds says that's why the Linux
> kernel team is “so very anal about the whole ‘no regressions’ thing,
> for example. Breaking the user experience in order to ‘fix’ something
> is a totally broken concept; you cannot do it. If you break the user
> experience, you may feel that you have ‘fixed’ something in the code,
> but if you fixed it by breaking the user, you just violated that
> second point; you thought the code was more important than the user.
> Which is not true.”
>
> --end-section--
>
> I immediately thought of the udev thread.

Kernel and userspace are sometimes different.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Jonas de Buhr]

>The only problem with that attitude is that it eventually leads you to
>the same position that Microsoft is in with Windows -- where too many
>years of refusing to drop backwards compatibility were completely
>holding them back. 

i thought of that too. as with many other things, the trick is to find
the right balance. important code changes/cleanups sometimes have to be
made, even if they break things. if that happens too often its going to
annoy the users.

Re: [gentoo-user] Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 26 Sep 2011 23:06:36 +0200
Jonas de Buhr <jonas.de.buhr@gmx.net> wrote:

> >The only problem with that attitude is that it eventually leads you
> >to the same position that Microsoft is in with Windows -- where too
> >many years of refusing to drop backwards compatibility were
> >completely holding them back. 
> 
> i thought of that too. as with many other things, the trick is to find
> the right balance. important code changes/cleanups sometimes have to
> be made, even if they break things. if that happens too often its
> going to annoy the users.

Apple had a nice middle ground, most noticeable in MacOSX.

Support the old version in a VM-like environment for two releases then
drop the support. I think it's a nice compromise.

It's unrealistic to support everything you ever did forever
like MS tried to do (IE6 is *still* hanging around somehow...), while
the other extreme is probably even worse. The current classic extant
example is Amarok2 and kmail2 - in both cases the devs seem to have
just decided that anyone running anything older than 6 months isn't
worth the effort. Well, that's too bad for Amarok and kmail, there's
lots of alternative apps for both. And switching apps is far less pain
than trying to deal with upgrades with zero supported upgrade paths.

These are hard lessons to learn.

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Peter Humphrey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 404 bytes --]

On Monday 26 September 2011 22:45:20 Alan McKinnon wrote:

> It's unrealistic to support everything you ever did forever
> like MS tried to do (IE6 is *still* hanging around somehow...)

Tell me about it! IE6 is the nastiest pain in the backside of any webmaster. 
I keep having to abandon pretty enhancements of my site because IE6 makes a 
mess of them.

-- 
Rgds
Peter		Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2407 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Dale]

pk wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Happened upon this interview with Linus Torvalds that some of you might
> find interesting (if you haven't seen it already):
>
> http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Linus-Torvalds-s-Lessons-on-Software-Development-Management/ba-p/440
>
> Best regards
>
> Peter K
>
>

Has anyone seen anything about the udev/initramfs thingy and what Linus 
thinks about it?

Just curious.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 09/26/11 16:13, Grant Edwards wrote:
> 
> That's hilarious.
> 
> The Linux developers are _constantly_ changing APIs in ways that break
> existing device driver code.  There are repeatedly wholesale
> re-designs of some APIs that happen between minor versions of a
> supposedly "stable" kernel.
> 
> We have to touch our NetBSD and FreeBSD drivers maybe once every 3-4
> years.  Often our Linux drivers have to be updated every 3-4 _months_
> to keep up with changes in the kernel that break things.
> 
> I suppose one could try to claim that people who ship Linux drivers
> for their hardware aren't "users" of the kernel, and therefore our
> dealing with such breakage isn't a "user experience".
> 

Contribute your drivers upstream. When the devs change an API, they'll
update your code for you.

[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-09-27, Michael Orlitzky <michael@orlitzky.com> wrote:
> On 09/26/11 16:13, Grant Edwards wrote:
>> 
>> That's hilarious.
>> 
>> The Linux developers are _constantly_ changing APIs in ways that break
>> existing device driver code.  There are repeatedly wholesale
>> re-designs of some APIs that happen between minor versions of a
>> supposedly "stable" kernel.
>> 
>> We have to touch our NetBSD and FreeBSD drivers maybe once every 3-4
>> years.  Often our Linux drivers have to be updated every 3-4 _months_
>> to keep up with changes in the kernel that break things.
>> 
>> I suppose one could try to claim that people who ship Linux drivers
>> for their hardware aren't "users" of the kernel, and therefore our
>> dealing with such breakage isn't a "user experience".
>> 
>
> Contribute your drivers upstream. When the devs change an API, they'll
> update your code for you.

That sounds good, but in practice it doesn't work.

 1) The kernel developers don't support any existing customers.  Bugs
    are only fixed for customers who are willing to run the next
    kernel verison.  I've got customers that are still running 2.4
    kernels. 2.6.18 is still widely used.  Will the kernel developers
    add new features, support for new hardware, or fix bugs for those
    customers.  Not a chance.

 2) The kernel developers only make sure that drivers compile.  They
    don't have the hardware or knowlege required to actually test
    them.  One of our drivers _is_ in the kernel.  Sure, it builds,
    but AFAIK, it hasn't actually worked for at least 10 years.

Trying to maintain two drivers (one in-kernel and one out-of-kernel)
just creates twice as much work for no gain.

-- 
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 611 bytes --]

On Monday 26 Sep 2011 23:21:56 Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday 26 September 2011 22:45:20 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > It's unrealistic to support everything you ever did forever
> > like MS tried to do (IE6 is *still* hanging around somehow...)
> 
> Tell me about it! IE6 is the nastiest pain in the backside of any
> webmaster. I keep having to abandon pretty enhancements of my site because
> IE6 makes a mess of them.

You can use MSIE6 conditional statements in your html to feed this muppet what 
ever stripped down code it will be able to render in terms of CSS and images.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am Montag 26 September 2011, 20:13:53 schrieb Grant Edwards:
> On 2011-09-26, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:37 PM, pk <peterk2@coolmail.se> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >> Happened upon this interview with Linus Torvalds that some of you
> >> might
> >> find interesting (if you haven't seen it already):
> >> 
> >> http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Linus-Torvalds-s-Lessons
> >> -on-Software-Development-Management/ba-p/440> 
> > Yeah, I just saw that. Admittedly, when I saw this section:
> > 
> > --begin-section--
> 
> [...]
> 
> >  Breaking the user experience in order to ???fix??? something
> >  is a totally broken concept; you cannot do it.
> 
> That's hilarious.
> 
> The Linux developers are _constantly_ changing APIs in ways that break
> existing device driver code.  There are repeatedly wholesale
> re-designs of some APIs that happen between minor versions of a
> supposedly "stable" kernel.

which is seriously not a problem and does not matter in the slightest.

They NEVER change user-space APIs and ABIs in incompatible ways. THAT is 
important.

> 
> We have to touch our NetBSD and FreeBSD drivers maybe once every 3-4
> years.  

and look how much devices they drive - because nobody has to send their 
drivers upstream, nobody does.

> Often our Linux drivers have to be updated every 3-4 _months_
> to keep up with changes in the kernel that break things.

which is your own fucking fault. 

Get your drivers into the kernel. Problem solved.

-- 
#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am Dienstag 27 September 2011, 04:05:31 schrieb Grant Edwards:
> On 2011-09-27, Michael Orlitzky <michael@orlitzky.com> wrote:
> > On 09/26/11 16:13, Grant Edwards wrote:
> >> That's hilarious.
> >> 
> >> The Linux developers are _constantly_ changing APIs in ways that break
> >> existing device driver code.  There are repeatedly wholesale
> >> re-designs of some APIs that happen between minor versions of a
> >> supposedly "stable" kernel.
> >> 
> >> We have to touch our NetBSD and FreeBSD drivers maybe once every 3-4
> >> years.  Often our Linux drivers have to be updated every 3-4 _months_
> >> to keep up with changes in the kernel that break things.
> >> 
> >> I suppose one could try to claim that people who ship Linux drivers
> >> for their hardware aren't "users" of the kernel, and therefore our
> >> dealing with such breakage isn't a "user experience".
> > 
> > Contribute your drivers upstream. When the devs change an API, they'll
> > update your code for you.
> 
> That sounds good, but in practice it doesn't work.
> 
>  1) The kernel developers don't support any existing customers.  Bugs
>     are only fixed for customers who are willing to run the next
>     kernel verison.  I've got customers that are still running 2.4
>     kernels. 2.6.18 is still widely used.  Will the kernel developers
>     add new features, support for new hardware, or fix bugs for those
>     customers.  Not a chance.

so what? There are long term stable kernels with no api changes. Hmm...

> 
>  2) The kernel developers only make sure that drivers compile.  They
>     don't have the hardware or knowlege required to actually test
>     them.  One of our drivers _is_ in the kernel.  Sure, it builds,
>     but AFAIK, it hasn't actually worked for at least 10 years.

and nobody complains on lkml about it - seems that nobody uses your hardware.

If something stops working (called a 'regression' btw) it has to be fixed. 
Linus is very clear about that.

> 
> Trying to maintain two drivers (one in-kernel and one out-of-kernel)
> just creates twice as much work for no gain.

then don't be outside the kernel.

-- 
#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Michael Orlitzky]

On 09/27/11 00:05, Grant Edwards wrote:
>>
>> Contribute your drivers upstream. When the devs change an API, they'll
>> update your code for you.
> 
> That sounds good, but in practice it doesn't work.
> 
>  1) The kernel developers don't support any existing customers.  Bugs
>     are only fixed for customers who are willing to run the next
>     kernel verison.  I've got customers that are still running 2.4
>     kernels. 2.6.18 is still widely used.  Will the kernel developers
>     add new features, support for new hardware, or fix bugs for those
>     customers.  Not a chance.

If your users don't upgrade their kernel, then the API doesn't change,
and there's no problem for these customers, right?


>  2) The kernel developers only make sure that drivers compile.  They
>     don't have the hardware or knowlege required to actually test
>     them.  One of our drivers _is_ in the kernel.  Sure, it builds,
>     but AFAIK, it hasn't actually worked for at least 10 years.
> 
> Trying to maintain two drivers (one in-kernel and one out-of-kernel)
> just creates twice as much work for no gain.
> 

So (assuming the devs do break your stuff occasionally) you have to test
and possibly fix at least one driver whenever the API changes. I see a
few options:

1) Test/fix one driver, in-kernel (less work)
2) Test/fix one driver, out-of-kernel (more work)
3) Test/fix two drivers, one in- and one out-of-kernel (most work)

In any case, even if I'm wrong about the amount of work involved, it
would be nicer for your customers if they didn't have to ask your
permission to upgrade the kernel.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am Dienstag 27 September 2011, 04:05:31 schrieb Grant Edwards:
>> That sounds good, but in practice it doesn't work.
>>
>>  1) The kernel developers don't support any existing customers.  Bugs
>>     are only fixed for customers who are willing to run the next
>>     kernel verison.  I've got customers that are still running 2.4
>>     kernels. 2.6.18 is still widely used.  Will the kernel developers
>>     add new features, support for new hardware, or fix bugs for those
>>     customers.  Not a chance.
>
> so what? There are long term stable kernels with no api changes. Hmm...

Except they have drivers which are buggy and require backported fixes.

>>  2) The kernel developers only make sure that drivers compile.  They
>>     don't have the hardware or knowlege required to actually test
>>     them.  One of our drivers _is_ in the kernel.  Sure, it builds,
>>     but AFAIK, it hasn't actually worked for at least 10 years.
>
> and nobody complains on lkml about it - seems that nobody uses your hardware.

Except his customers. Who are going directly to him for support.

> If something stops working (called a 'regression' btw) it has to be fixed.
> Linus is very clear about that.

That's all well and good, but it doesn't fix things that weren't
working correctly in the first place. Upstream kernel doesn't backport
fixes, that's what distros and people like Grant, for their customers.

And Linus's statement as quoted in that article (and my snippet)
doesn't include one important caveat: Sometimes, they drop support for
things that either have no maintainer, or are obsolete and difficult
to keep.

>> Trying to maintain two drivers (one in-kernel and one out-of-kernel)
>> just creates twice as much work for no gain.
>
> then don't be outside the kernel.

If we take your position, in this context, to its logical outcome, it
sounds like you're saying that distributions like Gentoo, Red Hat and
Debian shouldn't maintain older kernels with backported fixes.

There exist systems which cannot be upgraded with financial sanity;
the existing install works well enough that it would cost more to
upgrade. The reasons might be that they're using an old software
package which was abandoned, and taking ownership of the code isn't
always sane. I was actually approached by someone in my area a couple
weeks ago who was in just this kind of scenario.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Mark Knecht]

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:05 PM, Grant Edwards
<grant.b.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>> Contribute your drivers upstream. When the devs change an API, they'll
>> update your code for you.
>
> That sounds good, but in practice it doesn't work.
>
>  1) The kernel developers don't support any existing customers.  Bugs
>    are only fixed for customers who are willing to run the next
>    kernel verison.  I've got customers that are still running 2.4
>    kernels. 2.6.18 is still widely used.  Will the kernel developers
>    add new features, support for new hardware, or fix bugs for those
>    customers.  Not a chance.
>

Grant,
   Check out the Long Term Stable family of kernels. It's a bit hard
right now due to the status of the kernel web site being
down/changing. However you can see here at Andi Kleen's blog that he's
interested in participation:

http://halobates.de/blog/p/38

I know from watching the lkml list over the years that updates to long
term stable kernels come out periodically and do include fixes. I
don't know about new drivers, but reading Andi's blog it seems he's
potentially open to receiving driver updates from folks interested in
having the driver included.

Hope this helps,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am Dienstag 27 September 2011, 13:07:02 schrieb Michael Mol:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
> 
> <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Am Dienstag 27 September 2011, 04:05:31 schrieb Grant Edwards:
> >> That sounds good, but in practice it doesn't work.
> >> 
> >>  1) The kernel developers don't support any existing customers.  Bugs
> >>     are only fixed for customers who are willing to run the next
> >>     kernel verison.  I've got customers that are still running 2.4
> >>     kernels. 2.6.18 is still widely used.  Will the kernel developers
> >>     add new features, support for new hardware, or fix bugs for those
> >>     customers.  Not a chance.
> > 
> > so what? There are long term stable kernels with no api changes. Hmm...
> 
> Except they have drivers which are buggy and require backported fixes.

and that is the reason stable series exist. They are stable and they backport 
fixes. Exclusively.

> 
> >>  2) The kernel developers only make sure that drivers compile.  They
> >>     don't have the hardware or knowlege required to actually test
> >>     them.  One of our drivers _is_ in the kernel.  Sure, it builds,
> >>     but AFAIK, it hasn't actually worked for at least 10 years.
> > 
> > and nobody complains on lkml about it - seems that nobody uses your
> > hardware.
> Except his customers. Who are going directly to him for support.
> 
> > If something stops working (called a 'regression' btw) it has to be
> > fixed. Linus is very clear about that.
> 
> That's all well and good, but it doesn't fix things that weren't
> working correctly in the first place. Upstream kernel doesn't backport
> fixes, that's what distros and people like Grant, for their customers.

wrong, long time stable series do backport fixes. That is the reason they 
exist in the first place.

> 
> And Linus's statement as quoted in that article (and my snippet)
> doesn't include one important caveat: Sometimes, they drop support for
> things that either have no maintainer, or are obsolete and difficult
> to keep.

and when they do that they warn everybody for years (just look up binary 
sysctl support as a prime example).

> 
> >> Trying to maintain two drivers (one in-kernel and one out-of-kernel)
> >> just creates twice as much work for no gain.
> > 
> > then don't be outside the kernel.
> 
> If we take your position, in this context, to its logical outcome, it
> sounds like you're saying that distributions like Gentoo, Red Hat and
> Debian shouldn't maintain older kernels with backported fixes.

no, but if you decide on one kernel you should use one of the long term 
supported one. Not 2.6.something-because-I-like-the-number.

> 
> There exist systems which cannot be upgraded with financial sanity;
> the existing install works well enough that it would cost more to
> upgrade. 

so don't touch the kernel. Wow, that was hard. I think I need something to eat 
now. Hmmm... noodles....

> The reasons might be that they're using an old software
> package which was abandoned, and taking ownership of the code isn't
> always sane. I was actually approached by someone in my area a couple
> weeks ago who was in just this kind of scenario.

and if the system just works - why touch it at all?

-- 
#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am Dienstag 27 September 2011, 13:07:02 schrieb Michael Mol:
>> Except they have drivers which are buggy and require backported fixes.
>
> and that is the reason stable series exist. They are stable and they backport
> fixes. Exclusively.

I hadn't even heard of these until Mark's email 20 minutes ago. It's
useful information. You might have saved us some arguing if you'd
presented it more specific and in an explanatory fashion, rather than
dropping a noun and assuming it was specifically known. I assumed you
meant the kernels maintained by distributions. Obviously, I was wrong,
but Mark's email cleared that up for me.

>
>> The reasons might be that they're using an old software
>> package which was abandoned, and taking ownership of the code isn't
>> always sane. I was actually approached by someone in my area a couple
>> weeks ago who was in just this kind of scenario.
>
> and if the system just works - why touch it at all?

Because, in this case, the hardware, which is unreplaceable, went tits
up. Meaning it no longer works. It can't be replaced, and they're SOL
until they get the software ported forward. Their remaining hardware
of the same vintage had already died on them, and they didn't have any
migration path or hedge set up.

Other reasons--and this is why I *loathe* unnuanced "if it works,
don't touch it" mentalities--include security updates and migration
difficulty in the event of *necessity* of upgrades.

I know someone who's running Ubuntu 7.10 on a server that accepts
incoming, public connections--because they got it working, and didn't
even want to update to the Ubuntu 8.04 LTS, because of a "if it just
works, why touch it at all?" mentality. Eventually, they _will_ be
hacked as a consequence, even if it's just from someone scanning the
public IPv4 space with tools looking for vulnerable versions of
software.

The other general class of cases is something Gentoo users should be
able to understand in the abstract; the longer you go without
updating, the more difficult and expensive (in terms of time fixing
incompatibilities from un{tested,supported} version jumps, at the very
least) it becomes when you no longer have a choice.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Mark Knecht]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> Because, in this case, the hardware, which is unreplaceable, went tits
> up. Meaning it no longer works. It can't be replaced, and they're SOL
> until they get the software ported forward. Their remaining hardware
> of the same vintage had already died on them, and they didn't have any
> migration path or hedge set up.
>
> Other reasons--and this is why I *loathe* unnuanced "if it works,
> don't touch it" mentalities--include security updates and migration
> difficulty in the event of *necessity* of upgrades.
>

I sympathize with the hardware dieing, but one could argue (IMHO
anyway) that that is as much a management problem on their part, or
those supporting them, as it is an issue with the kernel. If someone
is running a system which is critical and isn't planing for how to get
new copies of the system or move forward to new hardware over time,
then they are painted into a corner.

I can pretty much promise you that one area likely to get LOTS of
attention in this kernel series IS security updates, at least if they
are kernel based security issues. That a major reason, if not the #1
reason, that this series of kernels exists.

HTH,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Michael Mol]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>>
>> Because, in this case, the hardware, which is unreplaceable, went tits
>> up. Meaning it no longer works. It can't be replaced, and they're SOL
>> until they get the software ported forward. Their remaining hardware
>> of the same vintage had already died on them, and they didn't have any
>> migration path or hedge set up.
>>
>> Other reasons--and this is why I *loathe* unnuanced "if it works,
>> don't touch it" mentalities--include security updates and migration
>> difficulty in the event of *necessity* of upgrades.
>>
>
> I sympathize with the hardware dieing, but one could argue (IMHO
> anyway) that that is as much a management problem on their part, or
> those supporting them, as it is an issue with the kernel. If someone
> is running a system which is critical and isn't planing for how to get
> new copies of the system or move forward to new hardware over time,
> then they are painted into a corner.

I fully concur.

IME, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a large underlying driver
for how people paint themselves into those corners. Management's (and
a terribly high number of sysadmins') definition of 'broke' doesn't
include 'can I recover if it gets hit by lightning tomorrow?'

>
> I can pretty much promise you that one area likely to get LOTS of
> attention in this kernel series IS security updates, at least if they
> are kernel based security issues. That a major reason, if not the #1
> reason, that this series of kernels exists.

And I think that's excellent; I wasn't even aware of them until today.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Mark Knecht]

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>> I can pretty much promise you that one area likely to get LOTS of
>> attention in this kernel series IS security updates, at least if they
>> are kernel based security issues. That a major reason, if not the #1
>> reason, that this series of kernels exists.
>
> And I think that's excellent; I wasn't even aware of them until today.
>

I understand you weren't aware so I'm just trying to gently help you
and others understand why this series exists.

If you read through the requirements for submitting patches to the
long term stable series one point is that an identical/similar patch
must exist in the development tree. For security issues those are
addressed pretty quickly, and as long as the code works in the earlier
code it's conceptually pretty easy for someone to get it included in
the long term series. Of course, I'm not a developer so I don't know
what is _really_ required, but conceptually it's doable.

Cheers,
Mark

[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[James]

Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin <at> googlemail.com> writes:


> > >  Breaking the user experience in order to ???fix??? something
> > >  is a totally broken concept; you cannot do it.

> > That's hilarious.

> > The Linux developers are _constantly_ changing APIs in ways that break
> > existing device driver code.  There are repeatedly wholesale
> > re-designs of some APIs that happen between minor versions of a
> > supposedly "stable" kernel.

> which is seriously not a problem and does not matter in the slightest.

Some perspective may ease the pain here. Folks on this list are focused
on *their personal pain*. Welcome to unix/bsd/linux. (too many decades now)
No pain, no gain. Gui experiences are what consumers see, feel and purchase;
so Volker is very right here. 

The kernel gyrations are all really about something much more important.
*MONEY*

Just think about it, on this list in the last few months, we have discussed
how the stock market runs on linux, Some folks use GPU + CPU for very
advanced things, Commercial distros like Apple's offering are making
billions. Android. (on and on). The point is the Linux Kernel is
the battle ground for software deployment, particularly firmware.
An infinite number of "user experiences"
can be packaged and sold on top of the Linux kernel.

Here's another one: Carrier Grade Linux (runs most of the worlds communications
systems, including most carrier grade cisco gear. Most legacy comm system
at some point now, get boosted on top of private IP networks run by the 
carriers (or military). Cisco recommends embedded linux on their carrier
switches and IOS is an unmanaged *hacked* pig, with little future.


The "gymnastics" about the kernel and drivers are the public manifestation
of a much deeper battle for embedded systems supremacy using linux. Wind River,
unquestionable the largest commercial offering of embedded solutions
has products based on both bsd and linux kernels. In "ka-hoots" with 
chip vendors they routinely offer "enhanced" drivers to companies that
build products, with features never to found in the linux published
sources. Binaries are available and yet clearly violate the spirit
of the whole (whore) open source movement. WHY? *MONEY*. Governments
and miltaries also feed at this trough. Linus would have his tits
slapped together, if he every interfered with these industries.
He in only in charge of the gyrations....

Tons of products still use embedded linux for the 2.4 kernel series.
They opt out of the 2.6 gyrations. Many companies put forward their best
technologies, in order to gain "mind-share" in the kernel wars.

Companies build very large data base systems, using the latest technologies
that work with the linux kernel. Often these technologies only appear 
for the masses, years after companies use a "in house" version as
the key pillar for commercial success (MONEY).

Take for example the company that does backups for one of the worlds largest
and most complicated database needs. The good old US ARMY.
They use linux, the latest open source databases and the newest
file systems like CEPHS, yet they are years away from public consumption.
Well financed companies are buying up the young (phd) experts whom
have hack out versions and code that makes CEPH usable. Billions of dollars
are being made and it's a real threat to Oracle. Customizations
of low level drivers in the latest linux kernel are the key, and
much of that work will not even be introduced to the linux kernel
community..........TOO MUCH MONEY AT STAKE!

(and you wonder why Oracle hates linux?) 

The linux kernel is a malaise of brilliant folks that are key components
in thousands of billion dollar schemes for a wide variety of embedded
and distributed  products (thinks corporation profits).

What amazes me if that we get any real progress on the kernel at all.
Only enough to keep technical folks in love with linux, but not
disturb the billion dollar industries, all jocking for position
around the kernel and drivers. So when things are murky, just
realize there is most likely several divergent financial interests
jocking for position behind those  public gyrations.....



> They NEVER change user-space APIs and ABIs in incompatible ways. THAT is 
> important.
> > We have to touch our NetBSD and FreeBSD drivers maybe once every 3-4
> > years.  
> and look how much devices they drive - because nobody has to send their 
> drivers upstream, nobody does.

Because embedded BSD, although still viable, does not have mindshare
any more. Most do not care. The battle it to spin your version
of embedded linux, and sell it to the product manufacturers.


> > Often our Linux drivers have to be updated every 3-4 _months_
> > to keep up with changes in the kernel that break things.
> which is your own fucking fault. 
> Get your drivers into the kernel. Problem solved.

Volker is right, again. However, this is where the true
fun begins, particularly when an innovative startup
looks to gain market share in an area where other
have made lots of money. Many drivers, not thought
to be strategic, have little issue. Some vendors,
Motorola comes to mind, put one driver into the kernel
and offer another quietly through vendors or
directly. Many Chipsets have always had "secret hardware features"
and the ability to use those features is still a well guarded
secret and costs tons of money and is often limited to 
who can use those chipsets. There are some NDA, if you
violate, your ass is dead.

Linus a "showboat" and making some serious cash, keeping
the public focused on linux (mindshare) and playing
as puppet as the big boys joust behind the scenes. From a
modeling point of view, the gyrations of the linux kernel,
chipset's hidden features and the device driver delusions
are very much akin to what is going on in the hacker
(interloper) world. The hilarious twist is the kernel
game is controlled by globalist. Hacking is everybody's
economic playground.

Why Greg even offers to develop drivers free for folks,
yet hardly any corporations take him up on this generous
offer?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Kroah-Hartman
http://kerneltrap.org/node/7636


Common it's all about *MONEY* The rest is just smoke, mirrors
and BULLSHIT....

hth,
James

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am Mittwoch 28 September 2011, 14:44:06 schrieb James:
> Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin <at> googlemail.com> writes:
> > > >  Breaking the user experience in order to ???fix??? something
> > > >  is a totally broken concept; you cannot do it.
> > > 
> > > That's hilarious.
> > > 
> > > The Linux developers are _constantly_ changing APIs in ways that
> > > break
> > > existing device driver code.  There are repeatedly wholesale
> > > re-designs of some APIs that happen between minor versions of a
> > > supposedly "stable" kernel.
> > 
> > which is seriously not a problem and does not matter in the slightest.
> 
> Some perspective may ease the pain here. Folks on this list are focused
> on *their personal pain*. Welcome to unix/bsd/linux. (too many decades now)
> No pain, no gain. Gui experiences are what consumers see, feel and purchase;
> so Volker is very right here.
> 
> The kernel gyrations are all really about something much more important.
> *MONEY*

well, if you make money with linux, their are many choices for you. Nobody 
forces you to target the latest kernel. You can always go with one of the many 
stable releases out there. Look them up.

> 
> Just think about it, on this list in the last few months, we have discussed
> how the stock market runs on linux, Some folks use GPU + CPU for very
> advanced things, Commercial distros like Apple's offering are making
> billions. Android. (on and on). The point is the Linux Kernel is
> the battle ground for software deployment, particularly firmware.
> An infinite number of "user experiences"
> can be packaged and sold on top of the Linux kernel.

so what? what does this have to do with linux changing internal apis that are 
not supposed to be public? (hint: nothing)

> 
> Here's another one: Carrier Grade Linux (runs most of the worlds
> communications systems, including most carrier grade cisco gear. Most
> legacy comm system at some point now, get boosted on top of private IP
> networks run by the carriers (or military). Cisco recommends embedded linux
> on their carrier switches and IOS is an unmanaged *hacked* pig, with little
> future.

see above

> 
> 
> The "gymnastics" about the kernel and drivers are the public manifestation
> of a much deeper battle for embedded systems supremacy using linux. Wind
> River, unquestionable the largest commercial offering of embedded solutions
> has products based on both bsd and linux kernels. In "ka-hoots" with chip
> vendors they routinely offer "enhanced" drivers to companies that build
> products, with features never to found in the linux published sources.
> Binaries are available and yet clearly violate the spirit of the whole
> (whore) open source movement. WHY? *MONEY*. Governments and miltaries also
> feed at this trough. Linus would have his tits
> slapped together, if he every interfered with these industries.
> He in only in charge of the gyrations....
> 

tell that yourself to make you happy. 

> Tons of products still use embedded linux for the 2.4 kernel series.

and there are even products with 2.2 kernels. What does that prove? Nothing?


> Companies build very large data base systems, using the latest technologies
> that work with the linux kernel. Often these technologies only appear
> for the masses, years after companies use a "in house" version as
> the key pillar for commercial success (MONEY).

and again, what does that have to do with internal api changes?

> 
> Take for example the company that does backups for one of the worlds largest
> and most complicated database needs. The good old US ARMY.
> They use linux, the latest open source databases and the newest
> file systems like CEPHS, yet they are years away from public consumption.
> Well financed companies are buying up the young (phd) experts whom
> have hack out versions and code that makes CEPH usable. Billions of dollars
> are being made and it's a real threat to Oracle. Customizations
> of low level drivers in the latest linux kernel are the key, and
> much of that work will not even be introduced to the linux kernel
> community..........TOO MUCH MONEY AT STAKE!

see above.

> 
> (and you wonder why Oracle hates linux?)

yeah, they really must hate linux. One of the first databases running on it, 
sponsoring btrfs etc pp. That is hate. 

> 
> What amazes me if that we get any real progress on the kernel at all.

not me. Because keeping internal apis backwards compatible for some out-of-
tree code is a sure way to go down the drain.


> > They NEVER change user-space APIs and ABIs in incompatible ways. THAT is
> > important.
> > 
> > > We have to touch our NetBSD and FreeBSD drivers maybe once every 3-4
> > > years.
> > 
> > and look how much devices they drive - because nobody has to send their
> > drivers upstream, nobody does.
> 
> Because embedded BSD, although still viable, does not have mindshare
> any more. Most do not care. The battle it to spin your version
> of embedded linux, and sell it to the product manufacturers.

and thanks to that mindset BSDs are pretty much stagnant. Think about it..

> 
> > > Often our Linux drivers have to be updated every 3-4 _months_
> > > to keep up with changes in the kernel that break things.
> > 
> > which is your own fucking fault.
> > Get your drivers into the kernel. Problem solved.
> 
> Volker is right, again. However, this is where the true
> fun begins, particularly when an innovative startup
> looks to gain market share in an area where other
> have made lots of money. Many drivers, not thought
> to be strategic, have little issue. Some vendors,
> Motorola comes to mind, put one driver into the kernel
> and offer another quietly through vendors or
> directly. Many Chipsets have always had "secret hardware features"
> and the ability to use those features is still a well guarded
> secret and costs tons of money and is often limited to
> who can use those chipsets. There are some NDA, if you
> violate, your ass is dead.
> 
> Linus a "showboat" and making some serious cash, keeping
> the public focused on linux (mindshare) and playing
> as puppet as the big boys joust behind the scenes. 

question: do you think the moon landings were fake too?

> From a
> modeling point of view, the gyrations of the linux kernel,
> chipset's hidden features and the device driver delusions
> are very much akin to what is going on in the hacker
> (interloper) world. The hilarious twist is the kernel
> game is controlled by globalist. Hacking is everybody's
> economic playground.
> 
> Why Greg even offers to develop drivers free for folks,
> yet hardly any corporations take him up on this generous
> offer?

because they are scared for their precious 'ip' not realizing that most of it 
is well known by their competition anyway.

> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Kroah-Hartman
> http://kerneltrap.org/node/7636
> 
> 
> Common it's all about *MONEY* The rest is just smoke, mirrors
> and BULLSHIT....

you must know it...

> 
> hth,
> James
-- 
#163933

[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-09-27, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am Montag 26 September 2011, 20:13:53 schrieb Grant Edwards:
>> On 2011-09-26, Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 3:37 PM, pk <peterk2@coolmail.se> wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >> 
>> >> Happened upon this interview with Linus Torvalds that some of you
>> >> might
>> >> find interesting (if you haven't seen it already):
>> >> 
>> >> http://h30565.www3.hp.com/t5/Feature-Articles/Linus-Torvalds-s-Lessons
>> >> -on-Software-Development-Management/ba-p/440> 
>> > Yeah, I just saw that. Admittedly, when I saw this section:
>> > 
>> > --begin-section--
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> >  Breaking the user experience in order to ???fix??? something
>> >  is a totally broken concept; you cannot do it.
>> 
>> That's hilarious.
>> 
>> The Linux developers are _constantly_ changing APIs in ways that break
>> existing device driver code.  There are repeatedly wholesale
>> re-designs of some APIs that happen between minor versions of a
>> supposedly "stable" kernel.
>
> which is seriously not a problem and does not matter in the
> slightest.

That depends on whether you have to maintain Linux drivers or not. ;)

Regardless, my point was that Linus's statement that it's unacceptable
to break things seemed rather disingenuous given the API churn that
Linux has compared with the BSD kernels.

> They NEVER change user-space APIs and ABIs in incompatible ways. THAT is 
> important.

Indeed, that's very important.

>> Often our Linux drivers have to be updated every 3-4 _months_
>> to keep up with changes in the kernel that break things.
>
> which is your own fucking fault. 
>
> Get your drivers into the kernel. Problem solved.

We tried that approach.  It didn't work -- it just generates a lot
more work.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! Did an Italian CRANE
                                  at               OPERATOR just experience
                              gmail.com            uninhibited sensations in
                                                   a MALIBU HOT TUB?

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Peter Humphrey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 286 bytes --]

On Tuesday 27 September 2011 17:52:24 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> which is your own fucking fault.
> 
> Get your drivers into the kernel. Problem solved.

Does gratuitous obscenity come naturally to you, or do you have to work at 
it?

-- 
Rgds
Peter		Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2434 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Indi]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 02:44:06PM +0000, James wrote:
> 
> The kernel gyrations are all really about something much more important.
> *MONEY*
> 
> ...Commercial distros like Apple's offering are making
> billions. 

OS X is not a linux distribution.
It uses the xnu kernel, which fuses elements of BSD
kernels with the Mach microkernel to create a hybrid.

Also, I think Linus still has a lot of say about kernel 
development and last I checked he's not particularly wealthy, 
so while there is some merit in what you say (mostly in the 
sense that money can buy more developer hours) I don't think 
Linux kernel development is "all about the money".

-- 
caveat utilitor
♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ ♫ ❤ 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am Mittwoch 28 September 2011, 17:15:34 schrieb Grant Edwards:

> 
> Regardless, my point was that Linus's statement that it's unacceptable
> to break things seemed rather disingenuous given the API churn that
> Linux has compared with the BSD kernels.

Linux has zero userland visible API 'churn'.

You can't have less than zero.

-- 
#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am Donnerstag 29 September 2011, 01:27:27 schrieb Peter Humphrey:
> On Tuesday 27 September 2011 17:52:24 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > which is your own fucking fault.
> > 
> > Get your drivers into the kernel. Problem solved.
> 
> Does gratuitous obscenity come naturally to you, or do you have to work at
> it?

I am naturally grumpy. 

I also have 'bastard' in my passport.

-- 
#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Joerg Schilling]

Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Linux has zero userland visible API 'churn'.

During what timeframe?

There have been massive Linux API breakages in 2004.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js@cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Volker Armin Hemmann
<volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 28 September 2011, 17:15:34 schrieb Grant Edwards:
>
>>
>> Regardless, my point was that Linus's statement that it's unacceptable
>> to break things seemed rather disingenuous given the API churn that
>> Linux has compared with the BSD kernels.
>
> Linux has zero userland visible API 'churn'.
>
> You can't have less than zero.

Uh, that can't be right. Largely, libc masks things.

Several kernel options explicitly state in their description that they
require new-enough versions of this or that userland tool to function
properly. Randomizing module base addresses is one of those, IIRC.
Some things related to sysfs. sysfs itself. I think some network
filesystems. modutils.

If there's no API churn, it should be pretty trivial to run a current
userland on top of, e.g. 2.6.0-pre1, or even 2.6.0. I also STR 2.6.9
being a common pin point where a bunch of userland tools required
that-or-newer.

And that's ignoring dropping things like A.OUT support.

I'm not arguing whether or not it's reasonable (it almost certainly
is), but there certainly is churn.

-- 
:wq

[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-09-29, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 28 September 2011, 17:15:34 schrieb Grant Edwards:
>
>> 
>> Regardless, my point was that Linus's statement that it's unacceptable
>> to break things seemed rather disingenuous given the API churn that
>> Linux has compared with the BSD kernels.
>
> Linux has zero userland visible API 'churn'.

I wasn't talking about the userland visible API.  I was talking
about the driver API.  I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about that.

-- 
Grant

[gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-09-29, Volker Armin Hemmann <volkerarmin@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 28 September 2011, 17:15:34 schrieb Grant Edwards:
>
>> 
>> Regardless, my point was that Linus's statement that it's unacceptable
>> to break things seemed rather disingenuous given the API churn that
>> Linux has compared with the BSD kernels.
>
> Linux has zero userland visible API 'churn'.

Bullshit.  Just a few weeks ago I tried to run a program on an older
machine (with an old kernel version) and it wouldn't work because of
kernel API changes.

-- 
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Adam Carter]

>> > which is your own fucking fault.
>> >
>> > Get your drivers into the kernel. Problem solved.
>>
>> Does gratuitous obscenity come naturally to you, or do you have to work at
>> it?
>
> I am naturally grumpy.

Yeah we've noticed ;) I like reading your posts because you know
stuff, and I like the fireworks.

You probably have a serotonin deficiency. Be careful though, being
grumpy is dangerously seductive.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Peter Humphrey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 198 bytes --]

On Friday 30 September 2011 01:45:39 Adam Carter wrote:

> Be careful though, being grumpy is dangerously seductive.

It is? You could have fooled me

-- 
Rgds
Peter		Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2059 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Adam Carter]

>> Be careful though, being grumpy is dangerously seductive.
>
> It is? You could have fooled me

Sorry - I meant being grumpy is seductive for the grumpy person. Its
pretty much the opposite for the people they interact with, as you
imply.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Dale]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> Am Donnerstag 29 September 2011, 01:27:27 schrieb Peter Humphrey:
>> On Tuesday 27 September 2011 17:52:24 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>> which is your own fucking fault.
>>>
>>> Get your drivers into the kernel. Problem solved.
>> Does gratuitous obscenity come naturally to you, or do you have to work at
>> it?
> I am naturally grumpy.
>

Wonder what I am?  Then again, does it matter?  Then again, do I want to 
know?  :/

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Michael Mol]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag 29 September 2011, 01:27:27 schrieb Peter Humphrey:
>>> On Tuesday 27 September 2011 17:52:24 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>> I am naturally grumpy.
>>
>
> Wonder what I am?  Then again, does it matter?  Then again, do I want to
> know?  :/

You're naturally curious, and unafraid to push technical boundaries.

Me, I'm just easily trolled. :)

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slightly OT but interesting nonetheless...

[Dale]

Michael Mol wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Dale<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>> Am Donnerstag 29 September 2011, 01:27:27 schrieb Peter Humphrey:
>>>> On Tuesday 27 September 2011 17:52:24 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>> I am naturally grumpy.
>>>
>> Wonder what I am?  Then again, does it matter?  Then again, do I want to
>> know?  :/
> You're naturally curious, and unafraid to push technical boundaries.
>
> Me, I'm just easily trolled. :)
>

I am the curious type except for one thing.  SNAKES.  Seeing one on TV 
is fine but in real life, lead poisoning.  O_O  I have killed three this 
year in my yard or garden.  My cat isn't dead a year and they are moving 
in on me.

Technical boundaries, I'd like to push the Fedora dev doing the /usr and 
/var on / thing off my roof, holding a snake.  lol

My Dad used to always tell me that a snake is more scared of us than we 
are of it.  I came back with this, does the snake wear Depends?  I know 
I was close to needing mine.  If the snake is more scared, then he lost 
his.  o_O

I need to take my meds.

Dale

:-)  :-)