Peter Zijlstra writes:

quoted text
> On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 18:42 +0100, stephane eranian wrote:
> > In fact, I know tools which do not even need a library. 
> 
> By your own saying, the problem solved by libperfmon is a hard problem
> (and I fully understand that).
> 
> Now you say there is software out there that doesn't use libperfmon,
> that means they'll have to duplicate that functionality.
> 
> And only commercial software has a clear gain by wastefully duplicating
> that effort. This means there is an active commercial interest to not
> make perfmon the best technical solution there is, which is contrary to
> the very thing Linux is about.
> 
> What is worse, you defend that:
> 
> > Go ask end-users what they think of that?
> > 
> > You don't even need a library. All of this could be integrated into the tool.
> > New processor, just go download the updated version of the tool.
> 
> No! what people want is their problem fixed - no matter how. That is one
> of the powers of FOSS, you can fix your problems in any way suitable.
> 
> Would it not be much better if those folks duped into using a binary
> only product only had to upgrade their FOSS kernel, instead of possibly
> forking over more $$$ for an upgrade?
> 
> You have just irrevocably proven to me this needs to go into the kernel,
> as the design of perfmon is little more than a GPL circumvention device
> - independent of whether you are aware of that or not.

I'm sorry, but that is a pretty silly argument.

By that logic, the kernel module loader should include an in-kernel
copy of gcc and binutils, and the fact that it doesn't proves that the
module loader is little more than a GPL circumvention device -
independent of whether you are aware of that or not.  8-)

Paul.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/