Re: Kernel developer attitudes, a problem to watch for.

[David Lang]

My post was intended to make people realize how ti fit into the existing
structure, I am not saying that the structure is fundmentally broken and
needs to be scrapped.

the fundamental existing process has been far more sucessful then the more
formal procedures that are allocated, people just need to realize what is
going on and not expect things to happen that won't.

David Lang

 On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 15:02:46 -0700 (PDT)
> From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[e-mail]>
> To: David Lang <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: Kernel developer attitudes, a problem to watch for.
>
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, David Lang wrote:
>
> [soapbox snipped]
>
> In the absence of
>
> a. A formal software development process,
>
> b. Formal requirements documents,
>
> c. A high-level formal design document,
>
> d. Marketing and sales,
>
> e. A formal Quality Assurance, Security Assurance and Performance
> Assurance effort,
>
> f. A corporate structure,
>
> etc. ...
>
> I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to behave in a different
> manner from the way they currently behave. I've heard this described as
> a brutal meritocracy, and organizations that need any of the above to
> meet their objectives are free to implement them at their own cost and
> to their own (and presumably their customers') benefit.
>
> That said, I think Linux could benefit greatly from some of the above,
> in particular c. and e. And the recent debate over printk vs. event logs
> would be a non-issue if we had b. and d. -- we'd have both because one
> is wonderful for rapid debugging and the other is wonderful for system
> administration.
> --
> M. Edward Borasky
> [e-mail]
>
> The COUGAR Project
> http://www.borasky-research.com/Cougar.htm
>
> If God had meant carrots to be eaten cooked, He would have given rabbits
> fire.
>