From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965034AbXBEXJg (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:09:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965041AbXBEXJg (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:09:36 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.24]:38289 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965034AbXBEXJf (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Feb 2007 18:09:35 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2007 15:09:15 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Randy Dunlap cc: David Woodhouse , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [patch] MTD: fix DOC2000/2001/2001PLUS build error In-Reply-To: <20070205143110.fca62b57.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> Message-ID: References: <20070205084523.GA21858@elte.hu> <1170682488.29759.795.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20070205155627.GA8354@elte.hu> <1170692539.29759.856.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20070205162635.GA755@elte.hu> <20070205163152.GA2464@elte.hu> <1170710272.29759.894.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <1170711587.29759.909.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <1170712393.29759.925.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20070205143110.fca62b57.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Randy Dunlap wrote: > > I think the problem is "who is make *config" for?". Absolutely. > Linus wants it to be for (unadvanced) users, but they tend to just > use distro kernels and distro configs, according to David, and I > agree with that. Well, the thing is, according to that logic, we might as well go back to the pre-Kconfig language entirely. I want people to feel that compiling their own kernel is *simple*. I also feel that a lot of people are "advanced" in one area, but not necessarily in another. The Netfilter example I gave was one such personal gripe of mine. I just feel like I shouldn't need to care! Yeah, I have the knowledge, but I *still* want to be baby-fed with just a simple "anybody can understand it". The same is true of the whole SATA/USB/SCSI thing. I know damn well that the kernel uses the SCSI layer for USB and SATA, yet I feel that the ATA layer does it right, and I just find the USB storage situation to be *offensively* bad in this regard. Why the HELL does it have those big comments and warnings, when it could just damn well enable SCSI support itself? So even advanced users aren't necessarily advanced outside their own area of expertise (I have no clue what I2C crud I'd need for some DVB card or even regular video card - or even *if* I need it). And even when they are advanced, they don't mind simple questions. This is not something where it's "good to be hard to use" (if those things even exist anywhere else either..) > > Claiming that "select" is evil is just totally strange. > > It's a real problem for developers who actually try to modify > configs. Why? You could *trivially* have a tool tell you. Make "xconfig" or something just pop up a window saying "sorry, you can't disable SCSI, because you've got ATA enabled, and ATA wants SCSI". What's the big deal, here? Linus