> ""Whats the point in ${enormous amount of work others did for me for free} ...""
That is the least charitable interpretation of it, and I think not at all what it actually says.A much better reading of it is, paraphrased:
"The PCI-e patch is nice, but it would be a dealbreaker waiting on driver support."
"The drivers are open source and checked into the same tree, so there's no dealbreaker there in waiting for vendors or coordinating with third party organisations and their release schedules {and that's the point of desiring open source drivers, so the system isn't hobbled by binary blob drivers and vendor release schedules}".
Very poor choice of words. If the deal is bad, request a refund!
I understand what you are trying to say, but i think that's just entitlement.
Just accept that, as a non-contributing OSS user, you have zero leverage over which features other people pour their energy into. If you do, that's a charitable exception and happens at the generosity of the one doing the work for you.
Edit: Let me quote the licensing terms that you agreed to and gave you permission to use the linux kernel at all:
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
Can you get off your high horse about finding someone to punish for some imaginary sin which hasn't even been committed in this thread, and respond to some of the things I said and the points I made?
The "deal" in question was imaginary person A offering patches to the kernel to fix the articles's PCIe allocation, and the Kernel maintainers hypothetically refusing the patches on the grounds that it would break compatibility with drivers and so it cannot happen. Then the comment that the drivers could be updated to match, so the patch could hypothetically happen. There is NO entitlement anywhere in this imaginary scenario, there is no demand for anyone to write such patch, no expectation that someone get right on updating the drivers, no insinuation that someone owes a review of such a patch, nothing that you are so het up about has happened or been implied to happen, been demanded, expected, requested, suggested or implied.
> "Just accept that, as a non-contributing OSS user, you have zero leverage over which features other people pour their energy into."
Where did you come up with the idea that I am a non-contributing OSS user? Because it drives your superiority fantasy, I suspect, where "putdowns of the inferior" are the order of the day.
That is the least charitable interpretation of it, and I think not at all what it actually says.A much better reading of it is, paraphrased:
"The PCI-e patch is nice, but it would be a dealbreaker waiting on driver support."
"The drivers are open source and checked into the same tree, so there's no dealbreaker there in waiting for vendors or coordinating with third party organisations and their release schedules {and that's the point of desiring open source drivers, so the system isn't hobbled by binary blob drivers and vendor release schedules}".