Michael Whapples, le Thu 05 Oct 2006 18:23:02 +0100, a ?crit : > Samuel Thibault writes: > > > 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. > In your example there are alternatives, can you name another system that > gives me speech from the moment the OS takes control of the computer, to the > moment it turns off? Kernel hackers just won't take this as a reason for including code that they consider not clean enough. > >> 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. > OK maybe it is to do with maintaining code, but still there is the question > of distros using speakup, surely they should be having problems or likely > to have problems sometime? Yes, I guess they are having troubles (and cope with them, since they are faced to their users, while kernel hackers aren't). Samuel
