|
|
|
|
|
|
by Avamander
841 days ago
|
|
|
> Linux kernel developers are entirely capable of assessing this. They're just refusing to do it for someone else's definition of a "security bug". Then instead of this, don't? It's utterly childish. > How would they get burnt by this? Social pressure from other kernel developers (or even outside) isn't going to have that effect. Fewer organisations willing to cooperate with them, for one? Social pressure comes in many forms and shapes, there's no way it won't have any effect. > The only possible influence would be from employers paying for Linux work They're going to be paying someone else to provide a clean feed instead of the organization that deliberately hinders these efforts. |
|
|
And that's perfectly fine, it's open source software. Either way someone gets paid to look at the patches, which is my point.
If you want to do it in a cost-effective manner, you'll find other people with the same requirements, since the work result is "shareable".
> […] instead of the organization that deliberately hinders these efforts.
There is no such organization, and it feels like you have very little understanding of the organizational (and funding) structures behind the Linux kernel. I really can't extend my comments into a full-blown explanation of this, sorry.
(No, the Linux Foundation does not perform the role you're implying: they don't currently and likely never will sell a "clean feed".)
> Fewer organisations willing to cooperate with them[…]
I have no data on this but it is entirely reasonable (and I believe it likely) that the current behavior was requested (or encouraged) of involved organisations and people by cooperating organisations and people.