[cgl_discussion] Re: [Ksummit-2004-discuss] CGL

Wilson, Andrew andrew.wilson at intel.com
Mon Jan 26 13:25:41 PST 2004


Anyone on this list remember the Monty Python "argument" sketch?
The first man knocks on an office door and says "I'm here for an
argument,"
to which the second man responds with a torrent of vicious names.
The first man says "wait a minute, this isn't a reasoned argument, this
is
just ad hominem attacks."  The second man very politely then says,
"oh, excuse me, Argument is two doors down.  This is Abuse."
As the first man leaves, the second man mutters under his breath
"stupid git."

Mika was looking for an argument but appears to have
located Abuse.  I don't believe simply stringing together words such
as "braindead," "idiots," and "stupid" qualifies as a reasoned critique
of
CGL.  If you have a reasoned critique, please share it with this list.
If not....

cheers

atw

-----Original Message-----
From: cgl_discussion-bounces at lists.osdl.org
[mailto:cgl_discussion-bounces at lists.osdl.org] On Behalf Of Christoph
Hellwig
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 12:41 PM
To: Mika Kukkonen
Cc: ksummit-2004-discuss at thunk.org; cgl_discussion at osdl.org
Subject: [cgl_discussion] Re: [Ksummit-2004-discuss] CGL


On Mon, Jan 26, 2004 at 09:43:53AM -0800, Mika Kukkonen wrote:
> Seriously, one thing that has annoyed me beyond reason is that people
> keep telling me that "CGL is evil because I read it somewhere", but
when
> I try to find where they read it, I almost always fail.

I think most people who commented on CGL on here have their fair deal
of having to deal with it.  Maybe it be by working for a distributor
that was talked into implementing the spec or having to deal with the
completely brainded CGL patches as a subsystem or driver maintainer.

> > Basically how it went on was a closed forum with people from various
> > industry groups sitting down behind closed doors writing a large
spec
> 
> Let me give you some history: CGL and it predecessors existed way
before
> it was announced to be an OSDL working group January 2002, and before
> that it _was_ a very closed and selected group of companies having the
> same itch (namely use of Linux and OSS in telecom industry) and 
> wondering how to scratch it. So it is no wonder, that it has taken
some
> time to transform the mind set of some management people to a more
open
> direction.

Sorry for disrupting your nice marketing speech, but their intent was of
course not to use linux in the telco industries.  Their intent was to
get the same thing they always did, just cheaper.  And Linux + commodity
hardware seemed to be the best way to get that (and probably it _is_)

> And this still puzzles me; why you people feel so threatened and 
> insulted by CGL? I mean all we have produced so far is couple
documents
> that you, the kernel developers, can just ignore. So why all this
hate?

Because a bunch of id^H^Hphbs coming up with a spec is never helpful.

> existence. Of course it can always be argued that projects like
OpenHPI
> (http://openhpi.sourceforge.net/) would exist even without CGL, but my

And it wouldn't be a big deal if it didn't existed.  One project more or
less implementing a stupid spec more or less doesn't change the world.

_______________________________________________
cgl_discussion mailing list
cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion




More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list