Dâniel Fraga wrote: > > While the developers discuss these things, the users are waiting forever. You make it sound as if its a case of bureaucrats discussing policy before opening the bread line. > And i think that if Linux really wants > to support well most of the devices, something should be done. > While supporting most devices is an admirable goal (and one which I certainly subscribe to) , what makes you think that pushing something through just for the sake of supporting it is the right course of action? Does "Linux" really want that? Perhaps you're projecting your own vision/aspirations of what Linux should be. Alternatively, one might ask what's wrong with not supporting devices? But the even better question is: why wasn't something done? > something should be done. I'll ask whether you are truly aware of the course of events surrounding this particular development issue? If you're not, then I'll add that the mailing lists and irc have recorded this history quite well. However, the drawback to this point is that actually ascertaining the truth within that history requires a full review of those records (m/l and irc). Not many people would have the time or interest in doing that. I don't recommend anyone bother either -- most of the "discussion" isn't really discussion, but rather juvenile behaviour that tirelessly repeats itself. Nonetheless, history holds quite clearly why, ultimately, something wasn't done. But that's not to say that attempts towards resolution were not made either, cause they most certainly were. > Otherwise it doesn't make sense the driver development because > when it finally is done, the device is obsolete and nobody will be > using it. Why would a device be obsolete? Why would no one still be using it? > So driver development should always be as fast as possible, because the market > (and users) won't wait for Linux developers to code the driver. > You hear that dev.'s ? -- the market ain't gonna wait for you, so you'd better start cracking and pump out the code like it was yesterday if you don't want to be steam-rolled....Else, you're gonna be out of a job. Now, setting aside my sarcasm, the two most obvious points that I'd like to make here are this: - First, the development at all costs argument just doesn't wash. - Second, nothing has ever prevented the market (and users) from developing its own market solution. If you're an end user who is not satisfied with the pace of the bread line, then drop out and learn to mill your own. And consider giving some of that home baked bread back to those very same bureaucrats whom you are grumbling about. After all, they've been handing out free bread for a while now for nothing in return. > but we should ask: so why programmers are doing this? What's the objective? > Programmers are doing it primarily because they enjoy doing it. Undoubtedly, each and every one of them has their own motives and objectives, but they owe no one such as your self an explanation as to the question "what is the objective". > To sum up: there's no time to waste. Why? What's the rush? Is there a race on? > Linux needs more code Why does it need more code? > and less discussion. > Development at all costs? Just do it? Damn the ramifications, full stream ahead? There's a purpose to discussion. If the discussion itself isn't purposeful, well .... _______________________________________________ linux-dvb mailing list linux-dvb@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linux-dvb
