On 05/08/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Les Mikesell wrote: > > > That sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. It's not really the business of > > an OS to own and restrict everything that touches it, whether on the > > driver or application interfaces. Attempting that will limit what users > > can do with it. Would you, for example, put all of your critical data > > on a firewire drive while you upgrade through the kernels used from FC5 > > to current? > > I assume you know very well that discussing this here isn't going to > change how the upstream kernel works. Either go to LKML and see if you > can convince anyone with your arguments or drop it. Can I take it by that statement you mean that the Fedora project has no influence over the state of the upstream kernel? That would be a pretty sad state of affairs, given the size and influence of the project's main contributor. As the person who started this whole argument by querying kqemu's inclusion (or lack thereof) into the kernel, I can also state I started this here rather than on the LKML because: -There is more chance of me getting an answer here -I do not subscribe to LKML and do not wish to in order to ask one question -I prefer the ... how shall I put this .. ambience.. of the fedora-devel to LKML I think this is also a good forum to debate things in before poking a nose in LKML, to also glean information as to varying modules and their progression towards inclusion - yes I remain the eternal optimist. It is also sad to see you are yet again ordering people about on a public mailing list. If you are not interested in the discussion, you do not need to read or reply to it, the latter being an option I would personally prefer. Regards Chris -- http://www.chruz.com -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
