The benefit is not zero. Repeating myself: While the code is there, it
encourages either removal or repair. If the option to remove is taken
off the table then it will eventually be repaired.
You want to remove the code so you attack me. Sadly for you, your
personal taste is irrelevant to the benefit that I bring. What kind of
a person considers robust debate to be a waste of time? A bit
pathetic, sadly.
I'm comfortable with that. I'm also comfortable that consensus might go
against me. This childish threat of kill-files is not going to stop me.
Are you claiming that it never did? Is that even important? Clearly
there was support for it in the mainline kernel. Anecdotally the
support worked.
...
This discussion is about removing code. That's a bit like tearing down
the pergola because the vine has shrivelled. Easy to do, but
counter-productive. LIkewise, removing iBCS2 code would be
unproductive. It would achieve no benefit, whilst simultaneously
leading Linux in the wrong direction. This is a point you have
consistently failed to address.
This is not about a great idea. It's about a pointless idea. Even
allowing what you say to be true, and it probably is, there is nothing
wrong with somebody having a great idea and leaving it to others to
implement. If the only people allowed to have great ideas were those
who could implement them then the world would be a much poorer place.
You demonstrate a twisted view of value.
Who said nobody is willing to implement it? We've all recently learned
that there is a patch. From there to implementation is much closer than
you or I thought last week. So already this discussion has prompted
tangible benefit.
--
