On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 13:56 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > To use another, perhaps more applicable analogy: > > If one has the choice to start a new business in the U.S., it > would be reasonable to do that. There's a lot of supporting > infrastructure, trust, distribution, standards, enforcement > agencies and available workers. > > Could the same business succeed in Somalia as well? Possibly - > if it's a bakery or something similarly fundamental. More > complex businesses would likely not thrive very well there. > > *That* is how I think the current Linux kernel tooling landscape > looks like currently in a fair number of places: in many aspects > it's similar to Somalia - disjunct entities with not much > commonality or shared infrastructure.
That's complete nonsense. If you want to use pieces of the kernel infrastructure, then just *take* them. There are loads of projects which use the kernel config tools, for example. There's no need to be *in* the kernel repo. And for code-reuse it's even easy enough to automatically extract parts of kernel code into a separate repository. See the ecos-jffs2 and linux-headers trees, for example, which automatically tracked Linus' tree with a certain transformation to make them sane for just pulling into the relevant target repositories. -- dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
