Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757866AbXHAFqe (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 01:46:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754168AbXHAFqZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 01:46:25 -0400 Received: from [202.78.101.198] ([202.78.101.198]:34906 "EHLO mx1.hq.astra.ph" rhost-flags-FAIL-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752748AbXHAFqZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Aug 2007 01:46:25 -0400 Message-ID: <46B01E3F.6050401@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:46:39 +0800 From: Carlo Florendo User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roman Zippel Cc: Linus Torvalds , jos poortvliet , ck@vds.kolivas.org, Michael Chang , Kasper Sandberg , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: [ck] Re: Linus 2.6.23-rc1 References: <200707282003.45142.jos@mijnkamer.nl> <200707282128.39906.jos@mijnkamer.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2504 Lines: 59 Roman Zippel wrote: > When Ingo posted his rewrite http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/13/180, Con had > already pretty much lost. I have no doubt that Ingo can quickly transform > an idea into working code and I would've been very surprised if he > wouldn't be able to turn it into something technically superior. When Ingo > figured out how to implement fair scheduling in a better way, he didn't > use this idea to help Con to improve his work. He decided instead to > work against Con and started his own rewrite, this is of course his right > to do, but then he should also accept the responsibility that Con felt his > years of work ripped apart and in vain and we have now lost a developer > who tried to address things from a different perspective. When Ingo wrote something that went head-on with what Con wrote, it was his prerogative to do so. There's no speaking here of rights to do or not to do since as matter of evidence, in the open source world, that which is superior (i.e. code, function, not person) has the right to exist and the inferior to die away. Did Ingo have the obligation to improve Con's work? Definitely not. Did Con have a right to get Ingo's improvements or suggestions? Definitely not. There are no such rights in this open source development framework (TM). What Ingo did, I think, was what he wanted and he has the right to do that. I believe that Ingo does not have an obligation to be responsible for what Con felt. You feel what you feel because you choose to feel that way. Let us remember that "Happiness is a choice, not a state." And let's just look at the attitudes on how both Ingo and Con reacted to the issues regarding their respective schedulers. I won't list them here now since they're all there in the archives. Since attitude also plays a big part in getting your code in mainline, I think we would know the reason why one got chosen for the other. Thank you very much. Best Regards, Carlo -- Carlo Florendo Softare Engineer/Network Co-Administrator Astra Philippines Inc. UP-Ayala Technopark, UP Campus Diliman 1101 Quezon City, Philippines http://www.astra.ph -- The Astra Group of Companies 5-3-11 Sekido, Tama City Tokyo 206-0011, Japan http://www.astra.co.jp - 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/