On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 05:11:58PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> Examples are welcome. > > I gave one below.. > > Not part of the kernel AFAIK, which makes it irrelevant for this > kernel-libre project. But it is indeed a problem, I don't deny it. The point is, you have to remove this too in your desired spin, which will introduce bugs. > >> And people don't take it up to Intel that they shipped a defective > >> product? > > > I challenge you to find a single microprocessor that has ever shipped > > without errata. > > Point being? How does this ethically justify Intel's denying its > customers the ability to make independent changes and fixes to the > microprocessors they purchased from Intel? ok, this conversation is getting into the realm of ridiculous. I've more important things to do than debate nonsense. > >> Or are you volunteering to take over these efforts? :-) > > > Are you volunteering to prefilter all the incoming kernel bugs > > to triage the bugs affected by your alternative ? > > I have no idea of the workload involved. Clearly. The kernel team is already buried alive in backlogs of bugs. This serves to do nothing but introduce new failure modes unless it's done properly. Hence my concern. Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
