Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 24 Jan 1999 07:55:04 -0500 (EST) | From | "Mark H. Wood" <> | Subject | Re: User vs. Kernel (was: To be smug, or not to be smug, that is , the question) |
| |
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Jon M. Taylor wrote: > On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Richard Gooch wrote: [concerning OS competition in an evolutionary context] > > They > > hang on until the bitter end. > > This is where the analogy breaks down. OSes are not life forms. > They exists to serve our needs, cannot reporoduce without our help, and > the form of their genetic code, so to speak, is entirely within our > control. I see no reason whatsoever why a *free* OS should hang on to the > bitter end.
A kernel doesn't care whether its code survives or not. Developers, OTOH, do. Some people *prefer* to wring the last drop of performance from an existing design, because it's intellectually stimulating, and don't care whether that design is or is not obsolete. Someone will go on working on Linux as long as it is still interesting to him, regardless of whether it continues to interest you.
This sub-thread should probably migrate elsewhere.
-- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood@IUPUI.Edu Innovation is only valuable if it improves one's life; otherwise it's just one more silly change to cope with.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |