Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 18:52:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
To: Gigi Duru <giduru@yahoo.com>
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux?
In-Reply-To: <20021005205238.47023.qmail@web13201.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10210051847360.22517-100000@master.linux-ide.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3079
Lines: 96


Well given that I get emails for "embedded" space nagging me about
supporting their stuff yet they will not reveal the alterations to the GPL
code they borrowed, and moan when the discuss of paying for consulting on
opensource they have illegally closed.  Yeah, I have zero compasion for
the embedded folks.

Gee every considered embedding somthing with a little horsepower?

So again, if you want change?  Submit it.
If you want a consultant?  Pay for it.

Next running around calling people "hackers" is not the best way to win
friends.  Do you think you could sell your embedded cruft if you told your
customer base, "Gee, I am just a hacker.  Please buy my product."

Dead thread for me now.

Cheers,


On Sat, 5 Oct 2002, Gigi Duru wrote:

> Now thats some advice from a kernel hacker... You
> really don't seem to care too much about embedded, do
> you? 
> 
> It's not about what I do not do, it's about what YOU
> do (I'm not talking to you personally, but to the
> hacker community as a whole). The kernel core didn't
> jump to 270KB compressed because I didn't do
> something.
> 
> Let me reformulate for you:
> * some years ago, (2.2 era) I was more than happy
> about embedding Linux.
> * along came 2.4, and things got fuzzy (should we move
> on, or stick to the good ol' stuff?)
> * now, 2.6 (or whatever) seems like a very bad choice
> for us.
> * I wonder about the next one (2.8/whatever): will it
> require a mainframe to run?
> 
> It's the trend, you see: you were on the right track
> but now you're loosing it. From the embedded point of
> view, YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION.
> 
> And don't give me the "use 2.2" advice. Stuff is being
> back-ported, I know, but not all of it. 
> 
> Why are old versions being actively maintained anyway?
> Isn't that a realization that those old versions are
> better suited for some tasks than the new one? Why
> would anyone choose to use 2.2? Because it serves him
> better. 
> 
> Now, why is 2.2 serving someone better than 2.4?
> That's something I'd like you to answer...
> 
> The beauty of Linux was it's scalability (I'm not
> talking SMP here): you had the same kernel running on
> the appliance, on the PC and on that mainframe. Things
> were smooth, things were perfect. I would have loved
> to preserve that...
> 
> Regards,
> Gigi 
> 
> --- Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote:
> > 
> > Well have a nice day and go pay for windriver
> > licenses, or use the source
> > to adopt to your needs, or hire somebody who can do
> > it for you.
> > Whinning will not help, doing will.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Andre Hedrick
> > LAD Storage Consulting Group
> > 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> http://faith.yahoo.com
> 

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/