On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 01:19:55AM +0530, Mayuresh Kathe wrote:
So much for me trying to be nice.
My coding effort has nothing to do with users. First I write something
that I enjoy writing; the fact that you like it or not is not really
relevant to me. After I am done with it I give it away because I enjoy
that part too. Now if the community has good suggestions I'll pick them
up and spend my time on those as well because I want/like it.
What the CDs pay for is a small part of the power bill to run CVS. The
monetary donations is what pays for the rest of the project
infrastructure. Nowhere in here is anyone getting paid to do this paid
for a living. Your donations enable the community to be able to share
the fruits of developers work.
I'd like to know where this so called blind fury is. I tried in the
nicest way to explain to you how this project works. If you don't like
the way the project is run that is your decision.
> Marco you are an idiot, you should stick to coding, don't come in the
Yeah I should shun that thing called life altogether and put all my
effort in for thankless shits like you. In this real world my employer
pays me for my monkey tricks and we have a mutual understanding that he
pays me enough for me to show up every morning. Also in this world I
spend my time writing code that I give away. Yes I am the beneficiary
of some donations for my time and effort but that is hardly relevant.
> That's why I called you an idiot.
They did not fix a real issue. Slowlaris is a function of IO not of
network throughput. Sun is very conservative with hardware so you
always purchase devices that could be considered obsolete by the time
Sun productizes them. This is a choice that might or might not work for
you.
But you are right; they totally can market their unverified super duper
TCP/IP stack. Good for them and they'll make some cash of it. There
was no issue that got fixed though. It worked well enough that the
marketing drones could sell it.
> So what you are saying is that what the god father of BSD file systems
No. I said that background fsck in it's incarnation in other projects
was implemented in a suboptimal way rendering the functionality useless.
Doing a background fsck takes about the same time as it takes for a
machine to be useful when doing a foreground fsck. So you gained
nothing at increased levels of complexity. The problem wasn't solved
correctly. I don't know in how many more different ways I can put this.
> The investment is not just from me, its from all those users who don't
And developers are thankful for that. Very thankful.
> Actually what Ted has done was utterly disastrous, he knows his own
Ted's code was very nice however overall the system has some
limitations. Those need to be fixed before rthreads can move forward.
I hate to tell you this but I can develop code all by myself for me
without sharing. I don't need you in any way shape or form. In fact I
share only what I consider useful to the community. I have tons of code
that I don't share because you don't want it. I develop that 100% for
my needs; how are you a part of that? and why do I need you to do that?
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 002/196] Chinese: rephrase English introduction in HOWTO |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: Long delay in resume from RAM (Was Re: [patch 00/69] -stablereview) |
| Parag Warudkar | BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 15s! [swapper:0] |
git: | |
| Andi Kleen | [PATCH RFC] [4/9] modpost: Fix format string warnings |
| Rick Jones | Re: Network latency regressions from 2.6.22 to 2.6.29 |
| Antonio Almeida | HTB accuracy for high speed |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
