| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Binary-only kernel modules may be bannedBinary-only kernel modules may be bannedPosted Dec 14, 2006 0:17 UTC (Thu) by louie (subscriber, #3285)Parent article: Binary-only kernel modules may be banned
Isn't it a stretch to call that a 'conversation'? No one has responded either positively or negatively to the suggestion, as far as I can tell (certainly no one whose opinion matters)... or am I missing something?
(Log in to post comments)
*yawn* Posted Dec 14, 2006 0:24 UTC (Thu) by pjhacnau (subscriber, #4223) [Link] It was a passing comment in a much longer discussion about what device functionality should be exposed to user-space. I'm a bit disappointed that LWN proceeded to post it; the article is more sensationalism than content.
*yawn* Posted Dec 14, 2006 1:34 UTC (Thu) by imcdnzl (subscriber, #28899) [Link] I don't think it is sensationalist as Corbet uses words like may, if etc rather than saying it will happen.
It is newsworthy because Greg KH is promoting it and Alan Cox is supporting it. The big issue is whether Linus agrees or not. I for one hope he does as sick of binary modules (being a kernel developer).
*yawn* Posted Dec 14, 2006 2:10 UTC (Thu) by pjhacnau (subscriber, #4223) [Link] I've just re-read the thread. Here is the closest Greg KH comes to saying "ban binary modules" or similar.
> Again, X does this today, and does does lots of other applications.
There's nothing new in there. Greg's position on closed drivers is well known. He's not arguing for changing of licence wording, or sticking the "GPL Only" macro on any new symbols. All he's doing here is proposing an "out" for those who insist on doing them so he can ignore them.
So, IMHO, the only *new* bit in there is another developer saying "let's just ban them outright", and Andrew Morton's response. The rest, in terms of the "allow/disallow binary modules" argument (as opposed to the technical merit of Greg's patch) is just a rehash.
So unless our esteemed Editor has some information about movements outside of this email thread, I don't think the *new* statements there warrant an article at all.
Note1: Mr Corbet may well know of other happenings; if so can we know them too?
Note2: It's not newsworthy yet. That doesn't preclude additional posts in the thread appearing which do make it worth reporting on. But I'd expect an article on it then, not now.
*yawn* Posted Dec 14, 2006 3:14 UTC (Thu) by pjhacnau (subscriber, #4223) [Link] OK, I somehow managed to miss Greg's other comment:
> I'll whip up such a patch in a bit to spit out kernel log messages whenever
I still think it isn't news yet.
|
|
||||||||||||