On Thursday 30 November 2006 13:07, Andre Truter wrote:
> I don't follow. What hooks might MS have in the kernel and how would
> that get in the kernel in the first place?
Please be patient with me on this because I'm making it up as I go
along...
but how about this hypothetical scenario:
Suse gets (permission) to install proprietary drivers (using existing
kernel
hooks) which provide genuine *interoperability* at the cost of degraded
performance. In other words compatible kernel modules could conceivably be
introduced (not Linus sanctioned) into the distro (I can change the kernel if
I want to, for crying out loud) that may or may not provide *interoperable*
functionality, but would provide deliberate performance degradation. [ this
might have been done on exiting platforms in the past in order to slow down
say, Netscape ]
Yes, it would be detected, and some folks might even be sharp enough to
patch
it and publish their findings, but the damage would be done. If the damage
were subtle enough, it might not even be suspected immediately. But even if
it is suspected, it would take time and money to search, remove, and/or
remedy the damage.
I agree that no distro company would be foolish enough to fork their
own
kernel version... but its not inconceivable. I want a promise from Novell
that the kernel will be controlled by the community outside of the Novell
corporate environment... and not under the monetary control of M$.
--
Kind regards,
M Harris <><
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
