2c about the development of ubuntu
Udo 'Robos' Puetz
robos at muon.de
Sun Jan 1 20:29:46 GMT 2006
On Sun, 01.01.06, Ante Karamatic <ivoks at ubuntu.com> wrote:
Hi Ante and List.
> > Regarding my comment above, you will inject that oracle won't help me
> > because I used a non-certified distro. But this is the real thing:
> > do we want to follow the stupid game the "big companies" play and pride us
> > with being "certified" - although we run the same kernel and libc as any
> > other disto or do we force them - yes, linux and the distros have that power
> > already in my humble opinion - to "certify" linux-2.6.15.tar.bz2 straight
> > from kernel.org and libc from gnu.org?
> Development of 2.6 kernel isn't anything like development of 2.4 kernel.
> 2.6 kernels are development kernels and they are left to distributors to
> modify them to their like. You can't have one kernel that will fit all.
Uh, why not? Modules and such?
> You can't make one part of operating system (kernel) certified. You have
> to certify whole operating system. Kernel, by it self, isn't whole
> operating system.
That's why I also named libc, which implied that I mean "the necessary
> > Because it hasn't been tested well enough? Why shouldn't you have run 2.4.13
> > (mind the 4) on the day of it's release? Because that would have been *sort
> > of* bad...
> 2.6.15 isn't tested or 2.6 in general? 2.6.15 isn't out yet, and it's
> being tested as we speek. Acording to results, changes are made in
> development. To me it's better to test and develop, than develop and
> then test. What do you think?
I was specifically referring to 2.6.15 since this is already in dapper. A
little too early for my taste. And testing should occur with those who
compile kernels themselves, not with distros that ship it to their customers.
Especially for a server I want a tested kernel, if the tested one can
provide for all the hardware I got - naturally.
> As far as 2.6 goes... As I said, plain vanilla 2.6 kernels are mostly
> not-ploished. And this isn't a bug. This is a feature. It gives space to
> distributors of operating systems (RedHat, Canonical, Mandirva,
> Novell...) to shape their OS to their like and purpose.
To what end? What is the purpose of "shaping" the kernel? I think that the
situation is a little different: Linus or the marshals don't approve of
every patch right away. But some might be interesting. Like suse shipping
reiserfs without that being in the kernel (was some time ago). But this is
no: "okay, the kernel is ready, let the distributors make it pretty", it's
"uuuh, this is leet, this will distinguish our distro from the rest and
might bring a little comfort win, what do the kernel folks know about
selling stuff". This view of things is foolish in my opinion but becoming a
habbit. Linux is commerialising with aaaalll the bad habbits that come with
Udo 'Robos' Puetz
> Ante Karamatic | 0xD3BDA225 | 0x0A4A0161
> ivoks at grad.hr | ivoks at ubuntu.com | ivoks.blogspot.com
> "Tomorrow is my day off, so please stay off the powder!"
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
gpg --recv-keys --keyserver blackhole.pca.dfn.de 6EEADA09
More information about the ubuntu-devel