On Sat, 3 Jan 2004, Andries Brouwer wrote: > > Sure. It is not "need". It is "quality of implementation". > Consider NFS. The problems occur when there are things we _cannot_ guarantee, and that user space starts unnecessarily to depend on. And that ends up resulting in bugs waiting to happen. Bugs that many "normal" developers may never hit, simply because the quality of implementation ends up being so good that it hides the problem cases in regular usage. And then a high-quality implementation actually ends up being _detrimental_. It's hiding problems that can still happen, they just happen rarely enough that the bugs don't get found and fixed. And then the painful thing of forcing "stupid", aka "bad QoI" behaviour, actually ends up being the better thing in the long run. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Follow-Ups:
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordAndries Brouwer
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordAndries Brouwer
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordRob Love
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordRob Landley
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordRob Love
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordAndries Brouwer
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordRob Love
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordLinus Torvalds
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordAndries Brouwer
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordLinus Torvalds
- Re: udev and devfs - The final wordAndries Brouwer
- Prev by Date: Re: udev and devfs - The final word
- Next by Date: SYM53c8xx Panic on Boot: 2.6.1rc1 (Alpha)
- Previous by thread: Re: udev and devfs - The final word
- Next by thread: Re: udev and devfs - The final word
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]