On Sun, November 21, 2004 6:04 pm, Mike Hearn said: > On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 17:46:01 -0500, Sean wrote: >> You haven't made a good >> case that the kernel developers should change anything about the way >> they >> handle these issues. > > The case I'm making revolves around Linux being an OS people can use to > get things done, rather than a work of art or a demo of open source > principles. If you think the kernel is better off as a flagship of purity > rather than a production desktop kernel then fine, I have nothing to say > about that. > It's not about what I think. The question to you is, how do you convince the kernel developers to change their ways? What is their motivation? They are busy building an open source operating system. They accept the limitations of the OS as it stands today because they know it will get better over time and they're committed to working on it. So, if you accept that analysis, i'm asking you why you think the developers should spend any of their valuable time in a direction that goes against the very thing they're trying to accomplish? Your argument for pragmatism just belies your own personal goals which actually conflict with the very goals that fundamentally define what Linux is, and how it came to be important. Cheers, Sean
