[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: hurd does NOT need /hurd (firewalling tools)

On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:15:07AM +0200, Tobin Fricke wrote:
> On Wed, 22 May 2002, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Exactly. The problem is that if Hurd releases without firewalling tools
> > we haven't allowed our users to make this choice.
> Right... but the one problem with this argument is that it could be
> applied to any feature.  

Obviously, but I'm not doing that, am I? I could apply it to any bug,
and say "We won't release if there are any open bugs", too, but I'm not
doing that, either.

It'd also be possible to say "Hey, unstable's a lot better than stable
-- sure there are bugs, but who cares people don't have to use it! --
let's just release it as is now!" But we're not going to do that, either.

And yes, I realise there's no precedent for expecting new kernel features
before a port is released. But guess what: this is the first non-Linux
kernel that's going to be released, so every other port has already
gotten all the features of Linux for free.

> Perhaps it would better to release whenever everything that does exist is
> relatively stable and working well as a system, as opposed to waiting
> until everything exists.

Anything's possible.

Except getting any sense from debian-devel, of course.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``BAM! Science triumphs again!'' 
                    -- http://www.angryflower.com/vegeta.gif

Attachment: pgpVAEjctBOXR.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: