From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 12:06:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 12:06:03 -0400 Received: from snark.tuxedo.org ([207.106.50.26]:61704 "EHLO snark.thyrsus.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 12:06:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:04:34 -0400 From: "Eric S. Raymond" To: Alan Cox Cc: Tom Rini , Michael Meissner , Keith Owens , CML2 , kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up Message-ID: <20010518120434.F14309@thyrsus.com> Reply-To: esr@thyrsus.com Mail-Followup-To: "Eric S. Raymond" , Alan Cox , Tom Rini , Michael Meissner , Keith Owens , CML2 , kbuild-devel@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: <20010518105353.A13684@thyrsus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Fri, May 18, 2001 at 04:38:08PM +0100 Organization: Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs X-Eric-Conspiracy: There is no conspiracy Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox : > > I don't want to do (a); it conflicts with my design objective of > > simplifying configuration enough that Aunt Tillie can do it. I won't > > do that unless I see a strong consensus that it's the only Right Thing. > > Its a good way of getting the defaults right. It may also be an appropriate > way of guiding presentation (eg putting the stuff the ruleset says you wont > have under a subcategory so you would see > > > CPU type > Devices > blah > blah > Other Options > IDE disk > Cardbus I want to understand what you're driving at here and I don't get it. What's the referent of "Its"? Are you saying you think Aunt Tillie's view of the world should guide the presentation of options? -- Eric S. Raymond Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? -- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788