From: Rowan van der Molen <bigsmoke@usa.net>
  To  : ggi-develop@eskimo.com
  Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 22:06:38 +0100

Re: I got the Creative Labs position! (offtopic:Linus)

At 10:30 29-01-99 -0800, you wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Hartmut Niemann wrote:
>
>> > > 
>> > > Unfortunately, I've been lurking FAR too long to disagree with Jon.
>> > > The raw device IO patch came from Stephen Tweedie, and was coded
>> > > with care, and quality, and has been begged for by many, but got
>> > > rejected on the fundamental premise that it isn't needed.
>> > 
>> > 	Raw device IO, devfs, Streams, the updated ISDN stuff... those are
>> > just the ones I remember.
>> >  
>>
>> And if you read his emails carefully (e.g. what he told Andrea (the arca-
>> patches guy), and *how* he tells him he's wrong), then you know
>> that this man (Linus) is highly overloaded and needs severely a long break.
>
>	I have known that for some time now.  But as long as he refuses to
>delagate any *real* authority to Alan or David or someone else, and as long
>as he continues to eschew CVS, I'm not going to be too sympathetic.  He's
>doing it to himself, but the rest of us are suffering for it too. 
>
I suggest a Kernel FORK. I'm not a fan if FORKS (since I know what the word 
stands for ;) but I do know that it might be the solution for many problems
in this case.

Let's suggest that Linus and co. simply keep adding drivers to the 2.2 tree
where they
play with #define's and such for in case they get too bored ;)

and than the people who want to do some REAL stuff can work on the FORK and
think
of all the new things which someone could invent and put it all together
and than when 
it's stabalized out we call it Linux 3.0 and than Linus has just plain bad
luck because he'll
have to wear the stamp of making this big mistake for the rest of his live.
He'll only live 
in Linux history than and can spend his time giving interviews to fans ;)

But: I have an even better (Much BETTER) idea: 

Why do we have to stick with the Linux Kernel?
We're having the access to an other GNU kernel as well: GNU Hurd. The
architecture of
this kernel might allow everything which ain't possible right now with
Linux and we 
(if we want) can still call it Linux 3.0 when it's ready and all the
exiting new stuff is in it.

Remember: We have no short-term goals. If I listen to all the flames
everybody can miss
people like us who like to make thing basicly better so whe can focus
entirely on making 
such an architecture that it doesn't have to change for many, many years
and than the no-change
people can be really happy ;)

>> I am not in the position to tell him, unfortunately.
>> He'll take at least three months to recover from the 2.2. stress he
>> has been in surely. Doing Linux does not seem to be fun for him at the
moment.
>
>	No, and the fact that he continues to do what he is doing in spite 
>of that makes me wonder....
>