Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [BK PATCH] USB changes for 2.5.34

[Andrew Morton <akpm@digeo.com>]

Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> 
> > From: Daniel Phillips <phillips@arcor.de>
> > Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 07:10:00 +0200
> 
> >[...]
> > Let's try a different show of hands: How many users would be happier if
> > they knew that kernel developers are using modern techniques to improve
> > the quality of the kernel?
> 
> I do not see how using a debugger improves a quality of the kernel.
> Good thinking and coding does improve kernel quality. Debugger
> certainly does not help if someone cannot code.
> 
> A debugger can do some good things. Some people argue that it
> improves productivity, which I think may be true under some
> circomstances. If your build system sucks and/or slow, and
> if you work with a binary only software, debugger helps.
> If you work with something like Linux, and compile on something
> better than a 333MHz x86, it probably does not help your
> productivity. This is all wonderful, but has nothing to do
> with the code quality.

Uh, I feel obliged to respond to these statements just in case
anyone thinks they contain anything which is correct.

I have spent twelve months doing kernel development without kgdb and
eighteen months with.  "With" is better.

> And to think that your users would be happier with a crap produced
> by a debugger touting Windows graduate than with a quality code
> debugged with observation simply defies any reason.
> 

uh-huh.