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 11:11:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:11:43 -0400 Received: from t2.redhat.com ([199.183.24.243]:47867 "HELO executor.cambridge.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:11:30 -0400 Message-ID: <3B053B9B.23286E6C@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:11:23 +0100 From: Arjan van de Ven Reply-To: arjanv@redhat.com Organization: Red Hat, Inc X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Eric S. Raymond" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: CML2 design philosophy heads-up In-Reply-To: <20010518034307.A10784@thyrsus.com> <20010518105353.A13684@thyrsus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > (a) Back off the capability approach. That is, accept that > people doing configuration are going to explicitly and > exhaustively specify low-level hardware. > 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. Aunt Tillie doesn't even know what a kernel is, nor does she want to. I think it's fair to assume that people who configure and compile their own kernel (as opposed to using the distribution supplied ones) know what they are doing. Or at least make something like a "Expert level" question as first question, so that people who DO know what they are doing can select the options they want. Going from "make config" (which has a scary interface for novice users, agreed) to "vi" is NOT progress. Greetings, Arjan van de Ven