Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932744AbWBUQUF (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:20:05 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932745AbWBUQUE (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:20:04 -0500 Received: from smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.198.207]:37280 "HELO smtp108.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932744AbWBUQUC (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:20:02 -0500 From: David Brownell To: Phillip Susi Subject: Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler? Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:19:57 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: Pavel Machek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <200602131116.41964.david-b@pacbell.net> <200602192150.05567.david-b@pacbell.net> <43F9E95A.6080103@cfl.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <43F9E95A.6080103@cfl.rr.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200602210819.57740.david-b@pacbell.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1579 Lines: 42 On Monday 20 February 2006 8:07 am, Phillip Susi wrote: > > And this is exactly how non USB hardware has behaved for eons, and it > hasn't been a problem. How many billions of years exactly? :) Of course it sometimes _has_ been a problem. Repeating your claim doesn't make it true. And the user model of USB was certainly so those problems could be _prevented_ rather than continued forever into new generations of hardware. The fact that MS-DOS did something does not make it a good idea. > >>> But yes, you're right ... if he's serious about > >>> changing all that stuff, he also needs stop being a > >>> member of the "never submitted a USB patch" club. > >>> Ideally, starting with small things. > >> > >> You're moving off into left field. > > > > Not hardly. Unless all you're doing here is flaming? > > One point of $SUBJECT was that flames were _over_ ... > > Left field is where flames are, which is what the comment was that I was > replying to -- a flame. This is LKML. Pointing out when patches are overdue can't realistically be taken as a flame; it's a standard way of moving beyond discussion to action. (Or helping someone self-educate about issues they won't see until they, too, look more deeply ...) However, responding to a "request for patch" in that way certainly does come across as a flame. - 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/