Hi Richard,
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, richardj moore wrote:
> Let be clear about one thing: the GKHI make no statement about
> enabling proprietary extensions and that's a common
> misconception. GKHI is intended to make optional facilities easier
> to co-install and change. We designed it for DProbes, and when
> modularised will remain a GPL opensource offering.
Yes, I understand that.
> The only motivation for providing GKHI is to make the kernel more
> acceptable to the enterprise customer, but allowing, for example,
> RAS capabilities to be brough in easily and dynmaically. This type
> of customer will not readily succome to on-the-fly kernel rebuilds
> to diagnose problems that occur only in complex production
> environments.
I know this problem pretty well.
> If anything opens the door to proprietary extensions it's the
> loadable kernel modules capability or perhaps the loose wording of
> the GPL which doesn't catch loadable kernel modules, or
> whatever... Bottom line GKHI really has no bearing on this.
Yes, and that's why I am opposing here: Technically you are right, but
proposing that enterprise Linux should go this way is inviting binary
only modules due to the lax handling of modules.
Please keep in mind: I did not react to your announcement but to the
proposal that the companies should jump on it to do a special
enterprise Linux. If we really need a special enterprise tree lets do
it without module tricks.
Greetings
Christoph
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 15 2000 - 21:00:14 EST