On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:02:08AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote:
> Jarek Poplawski wrote, On 11/27/2007 11:15 PM:
> ...
>
> > Otherwise it's not so hard to overlook some stagnation.
>
> Btw., after this 'forking' thing etc. it seems I might have lost the point
> a little: which removed choices should justify such a fork.
Let me try to rephrase it:
If you think an open source project does something wrong you have the
right to fork it and offer an (in your opinion) better version.
This is the right you have.
But if you think open source gives you any legal or moral right to
demand any featurs or choices or whatever from developers you are
completely mistaken.
> But, I hope,
> you didn't mean your patch only, because then e.g. this stagnation threat
> looks like a bit exaggerated...
The question how many I/O schedulers we need is anyway in no direction
related to my patch.
> Jarek P.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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]
