Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1998-25,: Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107

# Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107

Tethys (tethys@ml.com)
Fri, 26 Jun 1998 14:38:07 +0100

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Peter Swain: "Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107"
- Previous message: Larry McVoy: "Re: Thread implementations..."
- In reply to: : ""
- Next in thread: Mark H. Wood: "Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107"
- Next in thread: David Lang: "Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107"
- Reply: Mark H. Wood: "Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107"

>I agree with the clients in one respect, why should they put their
>time and money into supporting Linux, using Linux, and writing
>applications for Linux, when some unknown person in some unknown
>location has taken it upon themself to be the Spelling and Grammar
>Checker making capricious changes with total disregard for what
>those changes break.

Of course your clients shouldn't put time and money into supporting and
using Linux if it's likely to break because of some strange spelling
changes. The point is, it's not.

What on *earth* are you thinking, giving them the latest development
kernel? That's what stable kernels are for. Development kernels are by
nature unstable and liable to break things -- if you really *need* a
feature in the later 2.1 kernels, decide on a version that supports what
you need, and *test* it thoroughly. When you're happy that it works,
send it out to your clients.

If you need features in 2.1.107 that weren't in earlier versions, then I
think you need to say that Linux isn't yet ready for your customers, and
let them use something else until those features are stable under Linux.

>To break code because someone did not like the way cpu & fpu were
>capitalized is lunacy.

No, to give clients an untested development kernel that's only been out
for a few days is lunacy, and I'm afraid I have little sympathy for you.

Tet

PS. Aside from anything else, this episode show the folly of parsing
text from /proc -- a programatic interface to get kernel information
would have been unaffected by this, as well as being more efficient.
Just my usual uninformed opinion... :-)

    --
    ``Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils'' - General George Stark
    --------------------+--------------+----------------------------------------
    tethys@ml.com       |  Micro$oft:  | Linux,  the choice of a GNU generation.
    tet@astradyne.co.uk | Just say no! | See http://www.uk.linux.org for details

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu

- Next message: Peter Swain: "Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107"
- Previous message: Larry McVoy: "Re: Thread implementations..."
- In reply to: : ""
- Next in thread: Mark H. Wood: "Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107"
- Next in thread: David Lang: "Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107"
- Reply: Mark H. Wood: "Re: Weird spelling fixes in 2.1.107"