Hello!
> libscg abstracts from a kernel specific transport and allows to write OS
> independent applications that rely in generic SCSI transport.
>
> For this reason, it is bejond the scope of the Linux kernel team to decide on
> this abstraction layer. The Linux kernel team just need to take the current
> libscg interface as given as _this_ _is_ the way to do best abstraction.
Do you really believe that libscg is the only way in the world how to
access SCSI devices?
How can you be so sure that the abstraction you have chosen is the only
possible one?
If an answer to either of this questions is NO, why do you insist on
everybody bending their rules to suit your model?
> The Linux kernel team has the freedom to boycott portable user space SCSI
> applications or to support them.
That's really an interesting view ... if anybody is boycotting anybody,
then it's clearly you, because you refuse to extend libscg to support
the Linux model, although it's clearly possible.
Have a nice fortnight
--
Martin `MJ' Mares <[email protected]> http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~mj/
Faculty of Math and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Rep., Earth
Ctrl and Alt keys stuck -- press Del to continue.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
