Re: packet writing support

[Mischa Baars <mjbaars1977.linux-block@cyberfiber.eu>]

On Sun, 2019-10-06 at 16:48 -0400, Laurence Oberman wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-10-06 at 10:31 +0200, Mischa Baars wrote:
> > On Sat, 2019-10-05 at 09:50 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > 
> > > It's not really a case of quid pro quo, if someone gets removed,
> > > something else can stay. I'd argue that the floppy driver is
> > > probably
> > > used by orders of magnitude more people than the packet writing
> > > code,
> > > and as such that makes it much more important to maintain.
> > 
> > I'm not into time-reversal, if that is what you mean?! I love
> > unilinear time and causal computers!
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Mischa.
> > 
> 
> Hello Mischa
> Something is not making sense here.
> If this will not be an open source project and not released then why
> not simply snapshot the kernel as is now and go ahead.
> Maintain it yourself, issue solved. No need to harp on the packet
> writing code support anymore.
> 
> Many companies have taken a snap of the kernel to use for storage
> arrays and then made changes and did not release the entire solution as
> open source.
> 
> You said
> 
> "Yes, I've written the the code myself, thank you. It's prototype
> hardware and it's not intended as an open source software project. It
> is therefore not going to
> be released to the general public. When it's finished, and it isn't at
> the moment, it's hopefully going to be part of your future processors.
> "
> 
Actually I was saying something entirely different, wasn't I?

> Regards
> Laurence Oberman

Regards,
Mischa.