On Fri, 2009-05-01 at 00:48 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 03:33:28PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: > > > Remember kids, we probably shouldn't be listening to you. Red Hat > > Desktop == Smart. You == Dumb. > > The problem with the desktop is that it's obvious, looks simple and > everyone has an opinion on it. But not all of these opinions are equally > valid. This kind of situation is much easier to deal with in, say, the > kernel VM system - in that case it would be perfectly acceptable for > people who spend their entire working lives concentrating on a specific > topic to say that they know better than people who occasionally touch > upon it. ... And the kernel VM people tend to be able to back up their expertise with hard data. If a patch isn't an improvement in some provable manner, it doesn't get in to the kernel. And the kernel has a pretty hard line stance on regressions. If a patch causes regressions, it's ripped out immediately. No matter who wrote it. We trust data, not experts. > It's not about smart versus dumb. If we trust these people then we have > to assume that in most cases they *will* know better than people who > argue against them on mailing lists. And if we don't trust them then > there's something pretty fundamentally wrong with the way we're > producing this distribution. Trust, but verify.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part