Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:38:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:37:58 -0500 Received: from TSX-PRIME.MIT.EDU ([18.86.0.76]:31119 "HELO tsx-prime.MIT.EDU") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:37:48 -0500 Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 15:37:36 -0500 Message-Id: <200011022037.PAA21436@tsx-prime.MIT.EDU> From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" To: Tim Riker CC: Ben Ford , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: Tim Riker's message of Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:31:51 -0700, <3A01C127.F335E92A@Rikers.org> Subject: Re: non-gcc linux? (was Re: Where did kgcc go in 2.4.0-test10?) Phone: (781) 391-3464 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:31:51 -0700 From: Tim Riker Me or Alan? I did not mean this as a dig. I feel strongly that one should have the choice here. I do not choose to enforce my beliefs on anyone else. I am suggesting only that others should provide the same courtesy. I truly meant "Thank you for you opinion". I feel the community benefits from the differing opinions contained within it. Yes, but that argument doesn't hold once you start asking the everyone to work on making that choice available. The question that some part of the community may ask is --- why should we help you make it possible to use a propietary C compiler? Choice also implies a choice not to work on things which help some particular person's pet cause, whether that is C++ kernel code, or propietary C compilers. If it makes the code harder to maintain or more complex, it impacts everyone, and it's fair to ask the question whether or not the feeling "one should have the choice here" is worth the cost which you're asking everyone to bear. - Ted - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/