Hi, Michael Whapples, le Wed 04 Oct 2006 22:47:11 +0100, a ?crit : > 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. I'm sorry, but that's not how things work with Linux. The Reiser4 code has been waiting for a long time for instance, and won't be merged unless the required cleaning up happens. > 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. The problem is not a stability problem, but a code correctness / style /?... You may have code that works, but if it is unmaintainable, some day it won't work any more. Samuel
