[ic] Proposed New Bug Submission Method...

[Doug Alcorn]

racke@linuxia.de (Stefan Hornburg (Racke)) writes:

> John Beima <jbeima@palb.com> writes:
> 
> > Since it has become more and more obvious that submitting a bug
> > via the developer.akopia.com is totally pointless if Mike doesn't
> > agree with you.
> 
> If think this true to any decent piece software. Providing a patch
> for the Linux kernel doesn't help you much, if Linus doesn't agree
> with you.
> 
> Either you haven't waited long enough, your analysis is wrong or
> your bug report lacks important details. Several bugs are fixed
> really fast, even some of the ones you reported on this list.

Open source has only worked as an open democracy in one instance:
Apache.  In all other cases successful open source projects have been
benevolent dictatorships.  That's certainly true of the linux kernel.
It doesn't take much reading of lkm to reailize it is a dictatorship.

If the terms of the dictatorship are too harsh, fork.  If enough
people agree with you then the fork will be successful (i.e. think
GNU Emacs vs. XEmacs.  Both "forks" thrive today).  However, in this
case I think you'll be an "Army of one".

The moral is that one of the reasons open source works is because the
project lead _does_ have final veto authority.  That's one of the ways
that a project maintains it's consistency and quality.

I'm sorry you're not getting what you want; but, the bottom line is
that this is Mike's code.
-- 
 (__) Doug Alcorn (mailto:doug@lathi.net http://www.lathi.net)
 oo / PGP 02B3 1E26 BCF2 9AAF 93F1  61D7 450C B264 3E63 D543
 |_/  If you're a capitalist and you have the best goods and they're
      free, you don't have to proselytize, you just have to wait.