modprobe audit/check-list

[Rob Landley]

On Friday 25 November 2005 12:46, John Kelly wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 01:23:20 -0600, Rob Landley <rob at landley.net>
>
> wrote:
> >> When I read the 2.6 changelogs, the developers
> >> sound like keystone cops all stumbling into each other.
> >
> >I've read the changelogs and I didn't get this impression.  It's sounds
> > like a completely meaningless statement of opinion to me, based on seeing
> > what you expect to see in the tea leaves.
>
> I don't use tea leaves.

You're arguing opinion.

> >>>As long as 2.4 can be made to work, I'm happy ... I personally think
> >>> nobody should be using it for _new_ projects, but that's my opinion.
> >>>
> >>>Rob
>
> Do you?

Have better things to do than argue opinion with you?  Quite so.

Let's see, the bracketing phrases "I personally think... but that's my 
opinion" turn out not to have been sufficient warning that it was a statement 
of opinion.  How might I make this more obvious in future.  I'll have to 
think about that one.

> >> In 2.6.15, they are making significant changes to the VM!
> >
> >As opposed to yanking Rik's vm for Andrea's in 2.4.10, you mean?
>
> Rik, Andrea, Nick, etc, etc.  Who knows where the linux VM will go
> next.  I wonder if they use tea leaves.

Write your own then.

> >With gcc 2.95 you were talking about performance, now with the 2.6
> >kernel you're talking about stability, and it's all the same to you?
>
> Stability and performance are both important.

And apparently interchangeable.  Higher performance is more stable.  QED.

> >"to the VM!" is irrelevant in your objection.  In 2.6, they are making
> >signficant changes ...
>
> The VM was one outstanding example of those significant changes you
> acknowledge.  If the thing is really a "kernel" it should be getting 
> smaller, not more and more bloated, like gcc.

You are, as always, welcome to run Hurd.  I'll be over here.

> >This is not advocating 2.6
>
> No?
>
> >>>As long as 2.4 can be made to work, I'm happy ... I personally think
> >>>nobody should be using it for _new_ projects, but that's my opinion.
>
> Well if you don't advocate 2.6 and I should not use 2.4, then I wonder
> if busybox can be ported to NetBSD ...

The depth of my lack of caring truly cannot be expressed in words.  I am 
forced to resort to interpretive dance.

Rob
-- 
Steve Ballmer: Innovation!  Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.