I agree with what you say from a certain perspective. If somebody wants to bifurcate the Kernel, (s)he should be free to do so.. that's the Open source mantra.
I am violently against any "non-formal" fork of the code for a different reason. Once the kernel.org loses its integrity, i.e it is no longer cnsidered THE source for the kernel, we are going to see mushrooming versions and flavors (the typical Unix way BSD,NetBSD,AiX,HP-UX..... the list goes on). Now, originally this was one of the main reasons behind Unix failing to become a corporate and commercial standard for development , that's were DOS/Windows came in with their "world domination". While I am all game for researchers, students and passionate people playing around with the source code, doing ther own kernel funkies,I strongly believe that another flavor of the Linux Kernel will dilute the power of the kernel. In fact, I consider it a good thing that stuff like RT-Linux have not caught on... We need to learn from the gcc branch outs.. look what happened to RedHat GCC vs GNU GCC. This is not an easy choice to make.. I know. -- shourya > -----Original Message----- > From: Russell McOrmond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 9:26 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [ilug-cal] Microkernel? > > If another project wanted to re-architect the kernel they > could do so, > using the existing code base, and fork the source. This is > exactly what I > hope to happen with there being many different kernels to choose from. -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the body "unsubscribe ilug-cal" and an empty subject line. FAQ: http://www.ilug-cal.org/help/faq_list.html
