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

[Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com>]

David Brownell wrote:
> 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?  :)
> 

<G>

> 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.
> 

But it hasn't been prevented, just changed into a less destructive, but 
more prevelant problem.  If you want to try to solve the problem then it 
should be solved in such a way that it does not cause other problems ( 
breaking mounts when you suspend ) and the solution should be 
generalized to all disks rather than just USB.

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

I think you got the thread confused.  The flame was:

 >>> changing all that stuff, he also needs stop being a
 >>> member of the "never submitted a USB patch" club.

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