Re: [lkcd-general] Re: What's left over.

[Alan Cox]

On Sun, 2002-11-03 at 01:24, Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> P.S.  IBM shouldn't have signed a contact with Red Hat without
>       requiring certain features in Red Hat's OS(es).  Pushing for
>       LKCD, kprobes, LTT, etc., wouldn't be on this list for a whole
>       variety of cases if that had been done in the first place.

I would hope IBM have more intelligence than to attempt to destroy the
product by trying to force all sorts of junk into it. The Linux world
has a process for filterng crap, it isnt IBM applying force. That path
leads to Star Office 5.2, Netscape 4 and other similar scales of horror
code that become unmaintainably bad.

> P.S.  As an aside, too many engineers try and make product marketing
>       decisions at Red Hat.  I personally think that's really bad for
>       their business model as a whole (and I'm not referring to LKCD).

You think things like EVMS are a product marketing decision. I'm very
glad you don't run a Linux distro. It would turn into something like the
old 3com rapops rather rapidly by your models (3com rapops btw ceased to
exist and for good reasons)

Alan