cqwrteur (euloanty.delete@this.live.com) on July 10, 2021 10:47 am wrote:
> Dismissive (too.delete@this.cee.bee) on July 10, 2021 10:41 am wrote:
> > You're having a really strong reaction to this tech experiment
> > those people are trying out on the kernel, and
> > to me that's even more interesting on a meta level than the actual points you're trying to make — I'm not
> > saying you're wrong, or right, but when I read all of this I just see a pattern of internet discussions.
> >
> > This is the sort of thread where minds aren't very much changed, very
> > often. Not a great outcome, given you have strong disagreement.
> >
> > Can you recall a time you felt like you had a discussion just like that
> > one, only with a different topic and different technical arguments?
> > I feel like we're having the same kind of discussions again and again. When the
> > outcome is thousands of words without a person budging, that is suboptimal.
> >
> > Whatever we're all doing in these threads, it's not working.
> > Maybe we should try gathering more data, instead of swinging
> > squishy opinions around and seeing whose breaks first.
> >
> > Let the little experiment happen.
> > If it fails, it'll be annoying for a short while, and next
> > time around you'll have a precedent to argue with.
> > If it succeeds, then that success will stick around for a long while.
> >
> > TL;DR: If you have strong feelings, it can be helpful to state them, but please
> > don't start long threads of arguments. That never makes anyone feel better.
>
> You are arguing Linux Kernel is some kind of toys that can be experimented on?
>

As long as it's not trunk - yes, yes and yes.

> Then what's wrong with the university of minnestoa to send patches to experiment on Linux Kernel?

With expectations to be included in "production" kernel? Or without?