| |||||||||||
Dismaying IndeedDismaying IndeedPosted Jul 21, 2004 3:37 UTC (Wed) by ken_i_m (guest, #4938)Parent article: Kernel Summit: Development process Putting the onus of stablization on the "distributions" spells the eventual end of independent Linux users/developers. I have been hearing rumours that glibc is heading down this same path. Without stable, reference milestones it will artificially increase the barrier to moving beyond dependence on a single vendor. A co-dependency mentality sets in, "why should I make any effort in this area when the bar for doing anything different is so high". Creative energy moves on to other areas of life (or other OS) where it is more effective. Innovation outside of the corporate sponsored environment dries up. Linux loses mindshare in the hearts of the people as an underdog. It becomes just another product manufactured by corporations. Goodbye, Linux.
(Log in to post comments)
Dismaying Indeed Posted Jul 21, 2004 4:25 UTC (Wed) by garloff (subscriber, #319) [Link] Well, the mainline 2.6 kernels have been quite stable; certainly stableenough most private users. The extra hardening is required for servers that do extreme stuff or have extreme hardware. The mainline kernel may thus not always be suitable for all of those. This is not necessarily as bad as it sounds. Most people who use such machines do want to have a support contract anyway ...
Dismaying Indeed Posted Jul 21, 2004 11:09 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] On the other hand, imagine a world where the distributors actually ship something close to the mainline kernel (because it already contains their patches) and developers can actually hope to see their work distributed in a reasonable period of time. These changes could actually make vendor kernels more alike and life easier for independent developers.
Dismaying Indeed Posted Jul 22, 2004 17:38 UTC (Thu) by piggy (subscriber, #18693) [Link] I for one am very excited. It is difficult to get customers to pay for kernel work in the development branch. Almost everyone wants their work done against the production branch. A longer active development lifetime for 2.6 means more potential for contributions from commercial developers.
Dismaying Indeed Posted Jul 21, 2004 12:10 UTC (Wed) by gallir (guest, #5735) [Link] Even if you are right (which I doubt), you didn't hear about Debian orGentoo patched kernels, for example. Did you?
Dismaying Indeed Posted Jul 21, 2004 17:20 UTC (Wed) by broonie (subscriber, #7078) [Link] They are patched, though.
Debian kernel patches Posted Jul 22, 2004 11:49 UTC (Thu) by shapr (subscriber, #9077) [Link] Debian kernel images are built from the kernel-tree-2.x.x package, which depends on the kernel-source-2.x.x and kernel-patch-debian-2.x.x packages.I build my own kernels with kernel-patch-debian-2.x.x as well, but often with additional kernel-patch packages and custom settings for my hardware.
Not convinced Posted Jul 29, 2004 11:27 UTC (Thu) by ringerc (guest, #3071) [Link] I'm not convinced that side of things is a big deal. It's possible thatsome distribution-neutral "linux-STABLE" will evolve over time, with distributions sharing maintainance. I'd say it's even likely. If not, I don't see that much difference between basing a distro on another distro rather than mainline (this is, after all, what most people do anyway).
|
|||||||||||