| |||||||||||||
On DTrace envyOn DTrace envyPosted Aug 8, 2007 19:30 UTC (Wed) by ahl (guest, #40497)In reply to: On DTrace envy by JoeBuck Parent article: On DTrace envy That's a very interesting point. I wonder if Linus et al. would object to hooks for an open source component, and, if they did, what the grounds for those objections would be.
(Log in to post comments)
On DTrace envy Posted Aug 9, 2007 11:47 UTC (Thu) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] I don't want to sound too humbugish about attribution, but that was my point with "(remember, they're both free software licences)" from my point b) (get linux devs to agree CDDLed Dtrace modules are ok). Any points about potential odd-standards are implied in that (particularly as I had already referred to proprietary modules earlier in my post, highlighted in bold too to make it obvious..). :)
On DTrace envy Posted Aug 9, 2007 19:55 UTC (Thu) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link] I wonder if Linus et al. would object to hooks for an open source component, and, if they did, what the grounds for those objections would be. That sort of thing has always met a lot of resistance. Currently any in-kernel API can be changed as long as you take care to fix up all the in-tree users. Obviously that makes certain kinds of changes much easier. And having in-tree users for API's makes those API's easier to understand and maintain.
|
|||||||||||||