On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 14:28:59 -0400, Ruben Safir said: > >> Others may come to different conclusions. I use www.google.com on a regular basis even though I can't download it. > That is not even a good analogy. We're comparing closed Coverty-as-a-service with closed Google-as-a-service. Seems like a good analogy to me. I'm failing to see the moral difference between using Google SaaS to look to see if anybody else has reported a particular kernel error and using Coverty SaaS to examine kernel code. As you yourself said: > If everyone depended on this Software as a Service then you would have a > nice walled garden to the Kernel Code. Why do you object to Coverty when Google is almost certainly more depended on by kernel developers?
Attachment:
pgpZr7akqJzcy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
