On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 7:55 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 10:36 PM, keld@keldix.com wrote:
I would relly like the dscussion to go on widely as it is now. Otherwise I would probably not follow this interesting discussion.
keld, the encouragement is appreciated, and i do follow the reasoning (which is that, given that gnu/linux distros are at such an interesting threshold point, there's simply been no need for such a large cross-posting before).
but, i have to keep my word, and i said i wouldn't interrupt people on such a large scale, preferring instead that those people who are *actively* interested participate. if, however, *you* - or anybody else feels that this topic still needs to reach a wider audience, in order to help things reach critical mass, please do actively bring it to their attention.
i have another write-up, done today, which brings together both the software and this time hardware strategic design concepts that i believe will help put control firmly back into the hands of Free Software Developers:
ok, so: follow-up:
is anyone interested to know what the costs would be, of an engineering board conforming to the above strategy, using a low-end Cortex A9 CPU such as the AML-8726-M? (for reference, the 8726 is known to be between $13 to $15 depending on volume)
does anyone have any questions, comments or suggestions regarding the strategy to place cooperation and collaboration back at the heart of linux kernel development?
any ideas on how to improve the software development tools (such as git) to help make that strategy easy to be part of the day-to-day development process?
perhaps most importantly, does anyone have any _better_ ideas than what's being proposed?
or, is everyone happy with the way that things are, and thinks that they should continue as-is (perhaps until russell quits completely, or linus bans ARM patches entirely from the mainline linux kernel)
what is it going to take for people to engage on these issues?
does anyone want to take responsibility for making sure that there is some progress?
l.