[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Kernel Modules in Fedora -x



Chris Brown wrote:
On 05/08/07, Rahul Sundaram <sundaram fedoraproject org> wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:

That sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. It's not really the business of
an OS to own and restrict everything that touches it, whether on the
driver or application interfaces. Attempting that will limit what users
can do with it.  Would you, for example, put all of your critical data
on a firewire drive while you upgrade through the kernels used from FC5
to current?
I assume you know very well that discussing this here isn't going to
change how the upstream kernel works. Either go to LKML and see if you
can convince anyone with your arguments or drop it.

Can I take it by that statement you mean that the Fedora project has
no influence over the state of the upstream kernel? That would be a
pretty sad state of affairs, given the size and influence of the
project's main contributor.

As the person who started this whole argument by querying kqemu's
inclusion (or lack thereof) into the kernel, I can also state I
started this here rather than on the LKML because:

And I added my comments because RHEL demonstrates that a distribution does not have to pass upstream breakage directly to users, and the centosplus kernel shows that it can be pretty solid even if you leave in the parts that RHEL removes.

-There is more chance of me getting an answer here
-I do not subscribe to LKML and do not wish to in order to ask one question
-I prefer the ... how shall I put this .. ambience.. of the fedora-devel to LKML

I don't see much hope for changes in kernel development unless/until someone puts together a really nice distribution around opensolaris so there is some other choice, but there is plenty of competition now at the linux distribution level and fedora has a somewhat-deserved reputation for breaking things with updates in the middle of a version cycle. Since fedora already has a very fast version turnover, why can't kernel updates be held back to security patches within a version or made 'opt-in' in the updater so users with working systems don't have unpleasant surprises?

I think this is also a good forum to debate things in before poking a
nose in LKML, to also glean information as to varying modules and
their progression towards inclusion - yes I remain the eternal
optimist.

It is also sad to see you are yet again ordering people about on a
public mailing list. If you are not interested in the discussion, you
do not need to read or reply to it, the latter being an option I would
personally prefer.

The discussion I'd like to see is to what extent stability matters and whether users that need it should just look for some other distro that includes firefox 2.x (etc.) but isn't so aggressive with kernel changes?

--
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell gmail com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]