[LUG.ro] Cómo se construye Linux, (con ejemplos)

[Stefano Lendaro]

+ 1 :-)

Stefano

2012/4/24 Alejandro Moliné <alemoline en gmail.com>

> El 23/04/12 10:23, Pablo S. Colombo escribió:
>
>  El 23 de abril de 2012 10:15, Ezequiel García<elezegarcia en gmail.com>**
>> escribió:
>>
>>  Les envío un extracto de un thread de la lista de correo lkml,
>>> qué es lo más parecido a las oficinas de Linux.
>>> Es una respuesta de Linus Torvalds a un patch de un señor.
>>>
>>> Asumo que debe haber algún profesional del software por acá
>>> y cómo esto no tiene desperdicio y viene al caso según los últimos
>>> correos.... bueno acá está:
>>>
>>> Saludos,
>>> Ezequiel.
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>>  Keeping compatibility is easy enough that it looks like it is worth
>>>> doing, but maintaining 30+ years of backwards compatibility
>>>>
>>> Stop right there.
>>>
>>> This is *not* about some arbitrary "30-year backwards compatibility".
>>>
>>> This is about your patch BREAKING EXISTING BINARIES.
>>>
>>> So stop the f*&^ing around already. The patch was shown to be broken,
>>> stop making excuses, and stop blathering.
>>>
>>> End of story. Binary compatibility is more important than *any* of
>>> your patches. If you continue to argue anything else or making
>>> excuses, I'm going to ask people to just ignore your patches entirely.
>>>
>>> Seriously. Binary compatibility is *so* important that I do not want
>>> to have anything to do with kernel developers who don't understand
>>> that importance. If you continue to pooh-pooh the issue, you only show
>>> yourself to be unreliable.  Don't do it.
>>>
>>> Dammit, I'm continually surprised by the *idiots* out there that don't
>>> understand that binary compatibility is one of the absolute top
>>> priorities. The *only* reason for an OS kernel existing in the first
>>> place is to serve user-space. The kernel has no relevance on its own.
>>> Breaking existing binaries - and then not acknowledging how horribly
>>> bad that was - is just about the *worst* offense any kernel developer
>>> can do.
>>>
>>> Because that shows that they don't understand what the whole *point*
>>> of the kernel was after all. We're not masturbating around with some
>>> research project.  We never were. Even when Linux was young, the whole
>>> and only point was to make a *usable* system. It's why it's not some
>>> crazy drug-induced microkernel or other random crazy thing.
>>>
>>> Really.
>>>
>>>                    Linus
>>>
>>
>> wow! el tipo no anda con vueltas!
>> slds!!
>> Pablo
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> Lugro mailing list
>> Lugro en lugro.org.ar
>> http://lugro.org.ar/mailman/**listinfo/lugro<http://lugro.org.ar/mailman/listinfo/lugro>
>>
>>  Adhiero. La diferencia entre pensar todo el tiempo en "mundos
> hipotéticos", "cómo podrían ser las cosas si...", y ponerse a laburar con
> un objetivo concreto, con resultados visibles que afectan la vida real de
> las personas, se ve en el texto de ese e-mail.
>
> Me parece que esa visión más concreta y de laburo, es la que representa
> Linus. Por eso, entre otras cosas, por sus 21 años de trabajo concreto y
> constante, sin perder el foco, y con la grandeza de compartir los
> resultados con los demás, se merece el premio que le dieron.
>
> Ale.
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Lugro mailing list
> Lugro en lugro.org.ar
> http://lugro.org.ar/mailman/**listinfo/lugro<http://lugro.org.ar/mailman/listinfo/lugro>
>