Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Commercial Programmers Produce "throw-away software"

  • Subject: Re: Commercial Programmers Produce "throw-away software"
  • From: Hadron Quark <qadronhuark@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:16:54 +0100
  • Cancel-lock: sha1:CSAQhjAK588mRF+uHIUz7/qqDq8=
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • References: <2173953.nCAanm0XBW@schestowitz.com> <1162467547.002331.77820@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <eicmeg$csb$03$2@news.t-online.com> <1162471114.323300.103760@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <eicti1$3o9$02$1@news.t-online.com> <1162478193.687084.138160@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1176554
"cc" <scatnubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Peter KÃhlmann wrote:
>> cc wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Peter KÃhlmann wrote:
>> >> cc wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> >> >> GPL enforcer bemoans code quality
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ,----[ Quote ]
>> >> >> | "The code quality is usually extremely bad. Looking at kernel
>> >> >> | patches from the various vendors, I'd say the code quality is, by
>> >> >> | far, off any scale that would ever even remotely be considered to
>> >> >> | be suitable for upstream inclusion" in the code base of mainstream
>> >> >> | projects such as Linux, he said. The commercial programmers spend
>> >> >> | no time making sure code will be portable to different varieties
>> >> >> | of processors, including 32-bit and 64-bit chips, and will work
>> >> >> | on multiprocessor machines.
>> >> >> |
>> >> >> | [...]
>> >> >> |
>> >> >> | "This code is 'throw-away software,'" Welte said. "I would be
>> >> >> | the most embarrassed man if I ever was involved with any such
>> >> >> | software. Having your name associated with such poor quality
>> >> >> | would be like a stigma. Any technical person would laugh.
>> >> >> `----
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> http://news.com.com/2061-10795_3-6131105.html?part=rss&tag=6131105&subj=news
>> >> >
>> >> > So they didn't write portable code and instead patched it to make it
>> >> > *work* with one specific processor, piece of hardware, whatever. Big
>> >> > freaking deal. It's "throw-away software" because they made it work for
>> >> > them, but not for everyone else?
>> >>
>> >> Well, yes, it is.
>> >> The next big processor change will make it obsolete eventually
>> >> Witness the extremely long time it took for MS to provide 64bit
>> >> capability when the AMDx86_64 processor arrived.
>> >> Linux was actually running on that processor before the first chip left
>> >> the fab, and windows-64 is still not to the point where you could safely
>> >> assume that even run-off-the-mill hardware will run with it. Linux has
>> >> *way* better driver support for that chip than windows currently has.
>> >>
>> >> > Welte is a moron.
>> >>
>> >> Nope. MS coders are incompetent monkeys.
>> >
>> > It has nothing to do with MS coders. MS wasn't even mentioned by me, or
>> > by the original article.
>>
>> You have not yet heard of "examples"?
>> It served as a current, up to date example how shitty code will do damage
>> later
>>
>> > Please don't respond if you're not going to
>> > read, or only talk about how shitty MS is, there are plenty of other
>> > threads started by Roy for that.
>>
>> I will respond in any way I see fit.
>> You have absolutely *no* say in how I respond nor to what I responmd in
>> whatever way. Did I make that clear enough?

And yet you're constantly bossing others around about how & why they
respond. Teutonic arrogance at its peak again. All huff & puff and
pushing people around. So typical.

>>
>> > It also has nothing to do with Linux
>> > supporting hardware better than windows. So thanks for adding nothing.
>>
>> Thanks for admitting that you are a moron. You have not even
>> understood a

Heh. Another "moron" exposed by the infallible Peter KÃhlmann - the
technical genius who doesn't even understand anti-aliasing.

>> simple "example" how badly written code bites even 500 pounds gorillas like
>> MS in the ass later
>>
>> > The next big processor change won't make it obsolete, it was for a
>> > specific application in the first place. Welte is complaining that
>> > coders made changes so Linux would work in a specific instance, but not
>> > work in all instances. Boo hoo, there is supposedly a huge developer
>> > base and community support for Linux, so can't they take care of the
>> > rest.
>>
>> Well, there are maintainers of linux code who are in a position to decide
>> what gets in and what does not.
>> H. Welte is one of those. And he is exactly right with his stance. Do it
>> right, or leave it to those who can

And wait, and wait and wait. Did you see how long we were waiting for
Roy's "free search engine" IURON? Apparently hordes of people were
supposed to come stampeding in and code his dream - except they didn't
and now he's deprecated it.

>
> That's all fine and dandy, except no where did he mention shitty code.
> He said it wasn't generic enough, wasn't portable enough. Guess what
> commercial coders don't have time to do? Cover every single instance,
> for every single piece of possible hardware that will touch that code.

Nope. They define their targets and deliver to a schedule. Do your
"psychological tests" that you pretend to develop work on a Palm? No? Oh
dear. Moron.

> People have deadlines and budgets. If Welte doesn't want to include
> their changes, that's his decision, but I bet the folks at D-Link don't
> give a crap. They made it work for their usage, not everyone elses.
> They made their source available, and Welte didn't like it, so he cried
> about it.

What should have happened is a Linux coder should have taken it, made
the code ISO standard and fed it back to DLink.

Simple.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index