Re: drive-by enlightenings

[Alan Grimes]

William Leslie wrote:
> This list is addictive in a bad way; and I should probably stay clear
> of it. It seems to mostly be assertions about what the project should
> be by people who have no interest in contributing, and even less
> interest in reading the archives or even the wiki, which clearly
> outlines the issues in the various kernels that the developers had to
> deal with along the way.

Link plz.

> It is probably the case that the lead engineers, with decades of
> experience developing the software that you probably haven't even read
> the wiki for, are a lot smarter than you, know what the current issues
> are, and better understand how to get there. Making statements for
> which the rebuttal is in the wiki will not make you seem particularly
> insightful. Attempted drive-by enlightenings benefit nobody.

Crusty old engineers, as a rule, have forgotten more than they know.
They don't know the current best practices, nor do they have much (or
any) appreciation for what the user community actually requires.

For the record, I got into operating systems in 1994 and abandoned my
project around 2004. So I'm not, by any means, a drive-by critic. If
such records exist, the date I joined this list should also be of interest.

-- 
New president: Here we go again...
Chemistry.com: A total rip-off.
Powers are not rights.