Why not?

[Bart Silverstrim]

On Mar 14, 2005, at 7:39 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:

> On 2005-03-13 16:53, Bart Silverstrim <bsilver at chrononomicon.com>  
> wrote:
>
> On the contrary, there are numerous cases when local patches, specific
> to the distribution of Linux that is used, are used:
>
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2002-November/msg00050.html
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2004-February/ 
> msg00018.html
>
> Backported fixes are not evil, but they are bad when they are available
> only if you are running "FooLinux version X".

Just for drivers? I wasn't sure what DM was...are any of these patches  
that were released available as source for other Linux kernels, or are  
these things being released without ever giving out the source to  
integrate with the primary Linux kernel tree?

>> But still, there is one source kernel, and unless the vendors did
>> something proprietary (which I don't believe they're supposed to be
>> allowed to do), you can compile your own kernel with your own set of
>> enabled and disabled features from the Linux kernel source tree
>> whether you're running Red Hat or Debian; it may break if that
>> particular distro is depending on certain features as you have it
>> configured and you fubar the new kernel's config, but it is still a
>> matter of tweaking that configuration to get it working again.
>
> Hardly.  Configuration changes will never fix a driver that is only
> available as a patch to the kernel source tree, when the patch fails
> to apply, build or install correctly -- a common case with some drivers
> (i.e. Cisco VPN or SysKonnect).

You're right, if you have an application that requires modification to  
the kernel then config changes won't fix it.  But that isn't the common  
case, and you should be able to take that application and apply it to  
the kernel tree source to create the working version, no?  Or are they  
distro specific?  In the few times I ran into it the "melding" wasn't  
distro-specific.

> Let us put aside for a while the blatant error of considering three
> distinct systems as one, when they are just that: three distinct  
> systems
> that just happen to share a lot of code and like cooperating on work
> that is a benefit for all three.

Then it would best be summed up as a difference in opinion over  
operations management and organization management.

>> I can't download the sources for NetBSD's kernel, compile it on my
>> FreeBSD box, and have it work no matter how much tweaking I do to the
>> configuration...if I'm wrong, please someone correct me.
>
> Actually, you can.  The NetBSD folks state that only a system  
> relatively
> compliant with POSIX is required for cross-building NetBSD on a local,
> non-NetBSD system:
>
> http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/BUILDING?rev=1.53&content- 
> type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
> (See the REQUIREMENTS section.)

No, I didn't mean compile it and deploy it.  I mean replace my system's  
kernel with that kernel and have it work.  The source trees are  
different, the resulting kernel would expect to work on a NetBSD  
*system*, not a FreeBSD system with a NetBSD kernel.

> Redundancy is good from a survival perspective.  Diversity is also  
> good,
> from an evolutionary perspective.  For every bad thing Linus can say
> about having separate teams working on the systems they enjoy working
> with, we can probably come up with htwo reasons why this is good.

Again, it's a difference in organization and management opinion.

> Hardly.  Otherwise, it would be easy to point a browser to a single,
> central place and browse the history of the Linux kernel from 0.9.x to
> 1.x and then to 2.x.  The fact that some bits are available in a
> proprietary repository somewhere is not good enough.

I was under the impression that kernel.org was the authoritative source  
for the Linux kernel.  What people are doing on the side was their own  
project.  *shrug*  I could be wrong :-)

> In general, it's a nice interview of Linus and very enjoyable to read,
> but I'm afraid he is not right about everything when he talks about the
> BSDs; which is not very surprising, I guess.

No, but don't discount editing of the interview as a factor too in  
accuracy.

But on the other hand, Linus doesn't really give a flip about BSD.  He  
has his own project, and he does (justifiably) have a lot to be proud  
of (at the risk of inflating his ego more).  He doesn't sound like he's  
really all that involved in distro flamewars or whatnot.  So...it's  
just another article for people to read :-)