Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler?

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

On Monday 20 February 2006 8:07 am, Phillip Susi wrote:
> 
> And this is exactly how non USB hardware has behaved for eons, and it 
> hasn't been a problem. 

How many billions of years exactly?  :)

Of course it sometimes _has_ been a problem.  Repeating your claim
doesn't make it true.  And the user model of USB was certainly so
those problems could be _prevented_ rather than continued forever
into new generations of hardware.

The fact that MS-DOS did something does not make it a good idea.


> >>> But yes, you're right ... if he's serious about
> >>> changing all that stuff, he also needs stop being a
> >>> member of the "never submitted a USB patch" club.
> >>> Ideally, starting with small things.
> >>
> >> You're moving off into left field.
> > 
> > Not hardly.  Unless all you're doing here is flaming?
> > One point of $SUBJECT was that flames were _over_ ...
> 
> Left field is where flames are, which is what the comment was that I was 
> replying to -- a flame.

This is LKML.  Pointing out when patches are overdue
can't realistically be taken as a flame; it's a
standard way of moving beyond discussion to action.
(Or helping someone self-educate about issues they
won't see until they, too, look more deeply ...)

However, responding to a "request for patch" in that
way certainly does come across as a flame.