In some cases we have to accept less than perfect code. By this I mean that it may function correctly with out no problems, but may need tidying up and other techniques may be more effecient, but if it is the only software that offers those functions then you should accept for what it gives, unless you are prepared to sort it out. Just leaving it definitely doesn't resolve the issues. The other thing is that speakup seems to be good enough for some distros to include speakup in the default kernel and some others have it as an optional kernel but still in the main distro, and are they less stable than others? (these include slackware, gentoo, grml). I always found it strange that Redhat said how good speakup is, but never had it included on the main distro media. From Michael Whapples Samuel Thibault writes: > Hi, > > Justin Ekis, le Wed 04 Oct 2006 10:39:41 -0400, a ?crit : >> Considering all that, and the fact that speakup seems to be very >> stable, I think this message is overly harsh but I'm pasting it below >> anyway. > > Mmm, it is not. Really. "Working" code doesn't mean "acceptable" > code. Linux can't accept code which doesn't follow a certain guideline. > Adrian Bunk was kind enough to enumerate the issues to be resolved, and > I do agree on all of them. This is not being harsh, this is requiring > good code quality. Else Linux wouldn't be so successful. > > Samuel > > >
