Is this still the linux-kernel list?

Is this still the linux-kernel list?

[David Lang]

I ask this (tounge in cheek) becouse some of the comments I have seen this
month seem so out of place.

first we had the 'this portion of the kernel is not subject to change by
anyone but me' post

now we have the 'code from this company or anyone working there is not
acceptable (now matter how well written) and may not even be looked at'

this sure doesn't seem like the same list that I have been reading for the
last four years.

remember guys, it's supposed to be about the code. As long as the code is
under an acceptable license who it's from or what it's going to touch
isn't supposed to be the issue, the issue is supposed to be 'is this code
an improvement (in performance, style, algorithm, etc combined)' if it is
it makes it in.

also I think it's fair to point out that maintainers who were perceived as
getting to possesive about their 'piece' of the kernel have been replaced
before, don't work your way into a corner and encourage someone to replace
you (for one thing the new guy makes mistakes as they are learning things
and it's painful for the rest of us :-)

David Lang

Re: Is this still the linux-kernel list?

[christophe barbé]

Hi great David;

Normally I would have just ignored your mail but one of your so great
points seems to fit with one of my recent post (perhaps you thought about
others) and I would like to give you my opinion about it.

On Wed, 13 Jun 2001 08:11:33 David Lang wrote:
> now we have the 'code from this company or anyone working there is not
> acceptable (now matter how well written) and may not even be looked at'
> 
> this sure doesn't seem like the same list that I have been reading for
> the
> last four years.
> 
> remember guys, it's supposed to be about the code. As long as the code is
> under an acceptable license who it's from or what it's going to touch
> isn't supposed to be the issue, the issue is supposed to be 'is this code
> an improvement (in performance, style, algorithm, etc combined)' if it is
> it makes it in.

I've recently send two mails about the isp2200 qlogic driver (qlogicfc)
included in the kernel. 

Two facts:

The qlogicfc driver in the kernel is outdated. Qlogic provides a newer one.
The main difference is that qlogic disable the IP support for an unknown
reason. The IP support is a usefull feature but the status of this driver
is IMHO "broken".
I think we should replace it by the newer from qlogic or remove it.
The only thing that the IP feature does it to influence customers to buy
the qlogic card for a feature which reveals to be not available when you
start using it. That's what I've done and I know that I'm not the only one.
It's interesting to know that this "IP over FC" feature is provided by
other cards.

>From a more general point of view. I fully disagree with your "only code
matters" approch. I strongly believe in the Free Software goal and It seems
to be the case of many linux kernel hackers. The kernel must IMHO be DFSG
compliant. 

Christophe

-- 
Christophe Barbé
Software Engineer - christophe.barbe@lineo.fr
Lineo France - Lineo High Availability Group
42-46, rue Médéric - 92110 Clichy - France
phone (33).1.41.40.02.12 - fax (33).1.41.40.02.01
http://www.lineo.com