On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 12:33:56PM +0200, Jeremiah Foster wrote: > > On Aug 17, 2011, at 00:33, Greg KH wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 09:26:24PM +0200, Jeremiah C. Foster wrote: > >> I'd like to echo Ben's sentiment, particularly in the area of automotive. > >> A car has to be supported with parts for at least ten years, often longer, > >> and this includes the build system for the infotainment software. > >> The GENIVI Alliance is now building infotainment systems for their member > >> companies (BMW, GM, PSA, Hyundai, etc.) which will have to preserve a > >> working kernel for a long time, like lark's tongues in aspic. So there is > >> an > >> interest in a "longterm, stable" kernel in the automotive industry. > >> Furthermore, > >> know-how around choosing a long term kernel relevant to a car is in short > >> supply, so there is a lot of reliance on the distros and commercial OSVs > >> in > >> this regard. > > > > Isn't that the job of the distros and commercial OSVs today? > > My understanding is yes. It appears to be a business opportunity for > many OSVs and others as well, but the distro's are doing a good job so > increasingly commercial companies are turning to distros, at least > initially. > > > Are they > > somehow not doing this job well? > > I think they are doing the job well which is why there is increasing > choice; use a distro or pay for an OSV? Rely on the community or > develop in-house competence? These questions are new, at least for the > automotive industry, since previously it was all proprietary all the > time.
Yes, it's a new model that they need to get used to :) > > Do they need help from the community > > instead to help define, implement, and maintain this for them? > > I think the answer is yes. > > > I'm genuinely curious about this, I haven't heard this directly from > > users before, only from companies who are in this line of work, wanting > > help in doing this for them, for a variety of odd reasons. > > If it helps at all, I can bring up this topic inside GENIVI and ask if > there are OEMs, Tier 1s and others who would be interested in how to > identify a kernel that is appropriate for their long-term needs. I > have participated in GENIVI discussions like this previously and there > has not necessarily been clarity. Having your perspective and the > perspective of others with experience in kernel maintenance would be > helpful. Please do. My view of GENIVI from the outside is that it reminds me a lot of the problems that plagued the old CGL initiative. Hopefully that is incorrect on my part. If there's anyone, or any group, I should be talking to about this, or any meeting I could attend to help explain it all better, please let me know, I am more than willing to do so. > > If so, doesn't this imply that maybe those users should be choosing a > > different company for this support, or that they have given up on this > > and want to work directly with the community instead? > > That is the eternal question. For the auto industry it often boils > down to the cost / benefit ratio and the cost sensitivity for > production vehicles per unit is a major factor in what they choose. I > think if they can find a reasonable long-term kernel they'll help > maintain it in conjunction with the community. That's good to hear, any help is appreciated. Mostly I want to know what patches should be applied, that fix problems they have. That and testing the -rc releases would be wonderful. > > If the latter, > > I'd be very happy to work with them, contacts are greatly appreciated. > > Very generous of you. Let me see if I can pull together a list of > people where this can be discussed. That would be great, odds are, a new thread can be started, and everyone on cc: taken off, as I doubt they care about this :) thanks, greg k-h -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110824044636.gc...@kroah.com