2c about the development of ubuntu

[Ante Karamatic]

On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 21:29 +0100, Udo 'Robos' Puetz wrote:

> Uh, why not? Modules and such?

Not everything can be modulised (Xen for example) and some stuff are in
direct conflict.

> That's why I also named libc, which implied that I mean "the necessary
> stuff". 

So all distributions should use same kernel, same libc, same compiler,
same getty, same $EDITOR, same... for them all to be certified? Isn't
this exactly what opensource isn't?

> 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. 

You know that Dapper is still in development? I think Ben allready
exaplained why is 2.6.15 in Dapper and why is this a good thing.

> 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
> it.

Uhm... The code it self shows you that vanilla 2.6 isn't stable. It's
not only the patches - it's also changing API and ABI. To make it more
clear, in 2.6.x kernel you have a function that takes two arguments and
returns one. In 2.6.x+1, function with same name and on same position
takes 3 arguments. This shows you that distributiors should take one
kernel and build everything around it, customize it to support stuff
they want/need and in the way they want/need. There is no The One Linux
Kernel. It's open source. Change it, adopt it, make it do what you want
it to do. We aren't Borg - we don't share all goals with RedHat or
SuSE :)

On that topic http://kerneltrap.org/node/3513

-- 
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!"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20060101/b6e8ed97/attachment.pgp