.comment: The Wit and Wisdom of Linus Torvalds - page 6
Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know
So fix the stupid API.
The above is just idiocy.
The "p_page" should be a "b_page". Duh.
Are you all on drugs?
Get your acts together, guys. Stop blathering and frothing at the mouth. . . .
. . . So I repeat: are there known bugs in this area left in pre5? And with "bugs", I don't mean fever-induced rants like the above (*).
(*) And yes, you can smack me on the head for that outburst if it turns out that I just didn't see anything. I'll apologize. But right now I'm irritated.
Ehh, I think I found it.
I'll bet you $5 USD (and these days, that's about a gadzillion Euros) that this explains it.
Ok, the guy who made the netfilter Makefile was probably on some really interesting and probably highly illegal drugs when he wrote it.
Help me out, and I won't ever call "netfilter" a heap of stinking dung again. Do we have a deal?
Yeah, yeah, it's 7PM Christmas Eve over there, and you're in the middle of your Christmas dinner. You might feel that it's unreasonable of me to ask you to test out my latest crazy idea.
How selfish of you.
Get back there in front of the computer NOW. Christmas can wait.
Linus "the Grinch" Torvalds
Life does not end at 2.4.0. Think of it more as a "no more excuses" release.
Stop re-designing something just because you want to.
Stop blathering, and answer the question.
The code on both sides of the #ifdef is the same.
WHY IS THE IFDEF THERE?
Don't bleat about standards and ATA-4/5/6. They won't make the code behave any other way.
Why do you have a config option that doesn't do anything, except restate the exact same test in two different ways?
Doing the same test in two different ways and making it look like two different tests is confusing. Your explanation seems to be that "the standards are confusing, the source code had better be confusing too". And quite frankly, that is not a very good reason.
The linux kernel has had an interesting release pattern: usually the .0 release was actually fairly good (there's almost always something stupid, but on the whole not really horrible). And every single time so far, .1 has been worse. It usually takes until something like .5 until it has caught up and surpassed the stability of .0 again.
Maybe somebody else comes up with a better way to do it, or with a really compelling reason to.
"Feel free to try" is definitely the open source motto.
Tabs are 8 characters. They are NOT adjustable. Never have been, never will be. Anybody who thinks tabs are anything but 8 chars apart is just wrong. It's that simple.
And two spaces is not enough. If you write code that needs comments at the end of a line, your code is crap. It's that easy. There is never a reason to comment a single line, and multi-line comments the the right of multi-line code to the left is a recipe for disaster. In short, you don't do comments to the right of code - you do them before code.
When I say multiple mails, I mean multiple mails. NOT "26 attachements in one mail." In fact, not a single attachment at all, please. Send me patches as a regular text body, with the explanation at the top, and the patch just appended.
Attachements may look simple, but they are not. I end up having to open each and every one of them individually, remembering which one I've checked, save them off individually, remembering what the file name was, and then apply them each individually.
See the picture? Attachements are evil.
- Skip Ahead
- 1. Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know
- 2. Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know
- 3. Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know
- 4. Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know
- 5. Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know
- 6. Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know
- 7. Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know
- 8. Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know
- 9. Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know
- 10. Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know
- 11. Glimpses of a Guy You'd Like to Know