
Messages in this thread
SubjectAvailability of kdb
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2000, Damien Miller wrote:
> > Tools like a KDB would make the kernel a lot more accessible to the
> > time-poor.
> Kdb is available to all. I think it should be _integrated_ mostly
> because of the (potential) improvement in bug report quality.

Well, yes and no. As maintained by SGI, kdb is up to date:

As maintained in the official ikd package, kdb is unusuably out of
date, at least for me:

Q: If kdb were a kernel option, would the official version be out of
date, the way it is now?
A: no.

Q: If kdb were a kernel option, would Linus be called on to fix it
when it breaks?
A: no, obviously not, Linus is too busy

Q: Who would fix it then?
A: Whoever breaks it.

Q: What if Linus breaks it?
A: That's a special case. I personally will drop whatever I'm doing
and try to fix it. I will cordially invite J. Dow, J. Merkey, R.
Gootch, and various other degenerate powertool lovers to help.

Q: Would kdb in the kernel result in more bugs getting fixed faster?
A: Yes, no doubt

Q: Do we need more bugs fixed faster?
A: Yes, we need that desperately.

Q: Would kdb in the kernel give us more eyes on the bugs, making them
even shallower than they already are?
A: Why, yes it would.

Q: Will kdb make your kernel bigger or slow it down?
A: Not if you don't use it.

Q: Is kdb a big patch?
A: It's only 93K, zipped.

Q: Then why isn't kdb in the kernel?
A: Uh...


"With enough Q's and A's, all arguments are shallow"
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.250 / U:4.404 seconds]