On Sun, 2019-10-06 at 16:48 -0400, Laurence Oberman wrote: > On Sun, 2019-10-06 at 10:31 +0200, Mischa Baars wrote: > > On Sat, 2019-10-05 at 09:50 -0600, Jens Axboe wrote: > > > > > It's not really a case of quid pro quo, if someone gets removed, > > > something else can stay. I'd argue that the floppy driver is > > > probably > > > used by orders of magnitude more people than the packet writing > > > code, > > > and as such that makes it much more important to maintain. > > > > I'm not into time-reversal, if that is what you mean?! I love > > unilinear time and causal computers! > > > > Regards, > > Mischa. > > > > Hello Mischa > Something is not making sense here. > If this will not be an open source project and not released then why > not simply snapshot the kernel as is now and go ahead. > Maintain it yourself, issue solved. No need to harp on the packet > writing code support anymore. > You are mistaking my project for a kernel module. I do not intend to do a spinoff. Perhaps, if it were a kernel module, but it isn't. > Many companies have taken a snap of the kernel to use for storage > arrays and then made changes and did not release the entire solution as > open source. > > You said > > "Yes, I've written the the code myself, thank you. It's prototype > hardware and it's not intended as an open source software project. It > is therefore not going to > be released to the general public. When it's finished, and it isn't at > the moment, it's hopefully going to be part of your future processors. > " > > Regards > Laurence Oberman >
