"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Problem with that is that you don't even know if the code-base > > will be used, so such factoring will be useless. > > Not if it's done well. The point is that if you can make the code > base suitable well designed, it will become *portable* and of > course it will be used. > > Then it isn't being done well right now.
Of course. Will you help fix the problems? > It sounds now as if you are bitching that other people are doing > some other project which you aren't interested in, and you are > worried that things would be better if they worked on the > Mach-based project. This may be, but the way to argue it is to > argue that work is more productively accomplished in place A than > place B, not to try and get maintainers to declare. > > And it sounds as you have not bothered reading anything of what I > wrote. I told you repetedly that I do not care if the Hurd is Mach > based, or L4 based, or even Linux based. But if it is true that we must pick one or the other, then there is a task to be done: picking. If you don't want to help solve that task, then it's likely to be unsolved. Ok, but I think it's rather churlish to declare that a task is extremely important AND refuse to lift a finger to work on it. Thomas _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list Bug-hurd@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
