russell, good to hear from you.
can i recommend, that although this is a really wide set of cross-posting on a discussion that underpins pretty much everything (except gnu/hurd and minix) because it's linux kernel, that, just as steve kindly advised, we keep this to e.g. cross-distro@lists.linaro.org? i'll be doing that from now on [after this] perhaps including arm-netbooks as well, but will be taking off all the distros.
so - folks, let's be clear: please move this discussion to cross-distro@lists.linaro.org, and, if it's worthwhile discussing in person, please do contact steve, so he can keep the slot open at the Plumbers 2011 summit.
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux linux@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 11:11:41AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote:
As such refactoring consolidated larger and larger chunks of kernel code, new designs would gravitate towards those consolidated implementations because they would be the dominant references.
Don't bet on it. That's not how it works (unfortunately.)
Just look at the many serial port inventions dreamt up by SoC designers - everyone is different from each other. Now consider: why didn't they use a well established standard 16550A or later design?
*sigh* because they wanted to save power. or pins. or... just be bloody-minded.
This "need to be different" is so heavily embedded in the mindset of the hardware people that I doubt "providing consolidated implementations" will make the blind bit of difference.
i think... russell... after they are told, repeatedly, "no, you can't have that pile of junk in the mainline linux kernel, Get With The Programme", you'd think that, cumulatively if they end up having to maintain a 6mb patch full of such shit, they _might_ get with the programme?
and if they don't, well.... who honestly cares? if they don't, it's not *your* problem, is it? _they_ pay their employees to continue to main a pile of junk, instead of spongeing off of _your_ time (and linus's, and everyone else's in the Free Software Community).
I doubt that hardware people coming up with these abominations even care one bit about what's in the kernel.
then don't f******g make it _your_ problem, or anyone else's, upstream!! :)
this is the core of the proposal that i have been advocating: if it's "selfish", i.e. as bill and many many others clearly agree with "if the bang-per-buck ratio is on the low side" then keep it *out* the mainline linux kernel...
... and that really is the end of the matter.
the sensible people that i've been talking to about this are truly puzzled as to why the principles of "cooperation and collaboration" behind free software are just being... completely ignored, in something as vital as The Linux Kernel, and they feel that it's really blindingly obvious that the "bang-per-buck" ratio of patches to mainline linux kernel need to go up.
so the core of the proposal that is the proposed "selfish-vs-cooperation patch policy" is quite simple: if the patch has _some_ evidence of collaboration, cooperation, refactoring, sharing - *anything* that increases the bang-per-buck ratio with respect to the core fundamental principles of Free Software - it goes to the next phase [which is technical evaluation etc. etc.]. otherwise, it's absolutely out, regardless of its technical correctness, and that's the end of it.
the linux kernel mainline source tree should *not* be a dumping-ground for a bunch of selfish self-centred pathological profit-mongering corporations whose employees end up apologising in sheer embarrassment as they submit time-pressured absolutely shit non-cooperative and impossible-to-maintain code.
you're not the only one, russell, who is pissed off at having to tidy up SoC vendors' patches. there's another ARM-Linux guy, forget his name, specialises in samsung: two years ago he said that he was getting fed up with receiving yet another pile of rushed junk... and that's *just* him, specialising in samsung ARM SoCs!
we're just stunned that you, the recipient of _multiple_ SoC vendors piles of shite, have tolerated this for so long!
anyway - i've endeavoured to put together some examples, in case that's not clear: i admit it's quite hard to create clear examples, and would greatly appreciate help doing so. i've had some very much appreciated help from one of the openwrt developers (thanks!) clarifying by creating another example that's similar to one which wasn't clear.
http://lkcl.net/linux/linux-selfish.vs.cooperation.html
this should be _fun_, guys. it shouldn't be a chore. if you're not enjoying it, and not being paid, tell the people who are clearly taking the piss to f*** off!
but - i also would like to underscore this with another idea: "lead by example" (which is why i've kept the large cross-distro list) we - the free software community - are seeing tons of nice lovely android tablets, tons of nice lovely expensive bits of big iron and/or x86 laptops, and only in very small areas (OpenRD Ultimate, GuruPlug, Pandaboard, IMX53QSB, Origen) are our needs for actual hardware which _we_ want (and i'm *not* being presumptious here - i'm inviting people to *say* what they want) just aren't being met.
who wants a bloody 800x600 VIA VunnnderMedia ARM9 350mhz tablet, to do linux kernel and gnu/linux distribution development on, _anyway_??? and who the hell wants only 512mb of RAM (iMX51). and who in their right fucking mind dreamed up that 1024x600 LCD panel size?
so here's what i propose:
we, The Free Software Community, want Our Figureheads (linus, bruce, alan, russell) to call us to arms (so to speak), to band together a la KickStarter http://kickstarter.org (or other), so that we can create the hardware platform(s) that *we* want, and, in the process, can take the opportunity to sort out the Linux Kernel mainline tree in the process (learning by doing, doing by leading, leading by example etc. etc.)
apart from anything - and this goes to you, linus and russell - i think that you would be much happier taking a break from doing git patch conflict management, _actually_ getting down and dirty with some real device driver writing, and i think you'd be much happier doing that knowing that the device you were writing those kernel drivers for was something that actual real free software developers really really wanted.
now, as i said above: i don't _dare_ to presume that i know what actual real free software developers want, in terms of hardware, but there's a small sampling on the debian-arm mailing list... let me drop you roughly in the middle of it, here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-arm/2011/08/msg00045.html mostly that was focussed around those little engineering boards (panda, IMX53QSB, origen etc.) but my aim here is to get people to think:
what hardware, which is fully free-software-compliant, that you would buy and recommend to others, that could also be attractive in mass-volume, do _you_ want to see, that would be useful to _you_?
i'm getting fed up of seeing stuff come out of factories that's completely useless. or gpl-violating. and/or requires reverse-engineering. http://lkcl.net/linux/ideal-vs-reality.of.product.development.html for some background.
as a free software developer, what hardware do YOU want?
answers on this one to arm-netbooks@lists.phcomp.co.uk (subscription required, please remember)
and, lastly - linus, russell, alan, bruce: there are people out there who would really appreciate if you could take up this call. not just me. we'd like to see you using your skills, and actually be happy and enjoy doing nitty-gritty linux kernel development, to the benefit of the free software community, instead of turning into patch junkies^H^H^H^H^H^Hmonkeys^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmanagers.
l.
-
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton