RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

--1033991234839
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

He probably means that some features are unnecesary and, are threatening to turn the kernel into bloatware, I cant talk though, I use IE 3 under wine...

Cheers, Dean.

On 	Sun, 6 Oct 2002 18:33:10 -0700 (PDT) 	Andre Hedrick <[e-mail]> wrote:

--1033991234839
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.116.70.75]) by smtp.cwctv.net  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.447.44);
	 Mon, 7 Oct 2002 02:35:48 +0100
Received: ([e-mail]) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S262303AbSJGBa0>; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 21:30:26 -0400
Received: ([e-mail]) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S262302AbSJGBa0>; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 21:30:26 -0400
Received: from astound-64-85-224-253.ca.astound.net ([64.85.224.253]:58898
	"EHLO master.linux-ide.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id <S262303AbSJGBaZ>; Sun, 6 Oct 2002 21:30:25 -0400
Received: from localhost (andre@localhost)
	by master.linux-ide.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA29102;
	Sun, 6 Oct 2002 18:33:10 -0700
Date:	Sun, 6 Oct 2002 18:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Andre Hedrick <[e-mail]>
To:	Aaron Lehmann <[e-mail]>
cc:	William Lee Irwin III <[e-mail]>,
	Gigi Duru <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux?
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender:	[e-mail]
Precedence: bulk
X-Mailing-List:	[e-mail]
Return-Path: linux-kernel-owner+Hell.Surfers=[e-mail]

On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Aaron Lehmann wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 05:44:38PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> > Even better, if you yourself took action to correct this regression it
> > would be as welcome as any other Linux development activity.
> 
> It seems to me that what would be even better than patches is a
> general awareness of bloat and an attitude discouraging adding any
> bloat whatsoever to the base kernel. Proactive bloat prevention is a
> much better solution than asking embedded developers to send fixes
> whenever someone increases the size of the core kernel unnecessarily.
> Let's prevent a Mozilla here.

So lemme guess, you calling "embedded" == "Mozilla" ?
This is the reason those developers do not submit patches and fixes?
Under that rational, why not unplug the support for the embedded archs?
This follows your line of reasoning perfectly?
So you are proposing to unbloat the kernel by not fixing and patch archs
which embedded people depend on?
Thus letting then rot and die then final removal of baggage?

Sarcasim and Humor,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group