On 2013.08.07 15:10, Alan Stern wrote: > I wish I knew. And I wish I didn't. ;)
> (And you might find it worthwhile to bring up these issues on the > linux-kernel mailing list, where many people will be keen to comment > on, question, debate, and otherwise mess around with such ideas. Much > more so than on the libusbx-devel list, where they are fairly OT.) I tend to prefer posting opinions to list where I have made some significant contribution(s). It does help getting the message taken a little more seriously, especially if some think it may be OT. Maybe if I get a chance to look at implementing a Linux console using xHCI's (sadly optional) Debug Capability, and manage to produce patches before somebody else does (might have already been done by know - I know Synopsys donated a patch towards xHCI DbC [1] and haven't really followed up the progress of any DbC caps for Linux), you'll also get to hear my opinions on the kernel side... for better or worse. > Rallying people to your cause is fine. Blowing off their requests to > support their hardware is not. Then I guess I should expect to find similar comments from you on how these quirky manufacturers' "Blowing off (users') request to support their hardware" isn't "fine" either. Considering that, as you're reiterated, we're all in agreement that the preference is to have the manufacturer fix specs compliance (with our disagreement being what action should be taken if that preference can't become reality), I expect that, before you decided to add a quirk to the kernel, you must first have tried to get the manufacturer to fix compliance, by asking the user to contact them, and must have found that this effort went nowhere. Consequently, I also expect that, since you'd be reluctant to add an element that goes against the option you deem preferable for all, we can expect many an example of explicit discontentment towards non specs compliant manufacturers, either in the code for the quirks or on the relevant mailing list posts. Is that a fair assessment? Otherwise, I don't see how I should be berated for something that I have only expressed the possibility of doing, whereas an entity actually doing it should get a more or less neutral pass. >> Sure, your local mechanic can fix that Ford Pinto's gas tank, so that >> you may avoid burning in a fire in case of a minor collision. But, as a >> car owner, you should understand that this individual action will >> accomplish nothing for all the _other_ Ford Pinto owners (or for future >> owners of a Ford car following the same design). Worse, it may very well >> send the very opposite message of what you really want which is a car > > I hate it when people talk about "sending messages". If you want to > send a message, use Western Union. :-) Yet the recipient of a Western Union message has the ability to choose not to take reception of the message, or tear it to pieces. Also, to actually come back to the point, I don't think apolitical or neutral technical mailing lists can exist. At least not in our current technological landscape. > That analogy is a little over the top, you must admit. No more than talking about holding people's devices "hostage". The Ford Pinto fuel tank defect [2] is an (allegedly) textbook example of what _a_ manufacturer may try to get away with, if left to its own devices (no pun intended). If you want something less over the top to illustrate how, unless watched closely, some manufacturers appear to have little concern for going against their consumers' interest, we can go into price fixing scandals or smart TVs being a hotbed of easily fixable vulnerabilities, and that's just two immediate examples I picked from last week's news. > As a general > rule, non-compliant USB devices are not deathtraps. Not even > malfunctioning ones. Not that I know of either, thankfully. But I also tried to provide a possible example of how they could result in a lot more harm than "oh well, my device isn't specs compliant". >> You gotta stop considering what's best for a limited number of >> individuals, and worst for the group at some stage, and do what's best >> for the whole group (even if the only way to get the original subset to >> do what's best for the group is to anger them and have them give in to >> transient selfishness). > > It seems that we have reached a level where little is left but a clash > of opinions. OK. Then I'll downsize my reply and cut much of the other stuff I would otherwise have commented on. Regards, /Pete [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=135940793913182&w=2 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto#Fuel_tank_defect ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite! It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production. Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead. Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
