On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Hoyt wrote:
[snip, snip, snip (sounds of bits dropping on the floor) ...]
>
> > As an aside, will it ever be the case that the patches to the kernel will
> > become incorporated as permanent features in all future kernels? It would
> > make the product so much easier to install and therefore to market.
> > After all, VMware modifications to X to incorporate VMtools are now, I
> > believe, included in the later versions of X.
> >
>
> My impression is that politics has reared it's ugly head as two different
> groups handle X and the kernel. I think that NeTreverse has tried, but has
> probably run into "you're not open source" diatribe.
>
Mmm I am not too sure I buy that. The Netraverse policy ought to be to
ensure that the hooks or whatever (and I haven't even looked, so please
keep the bunsen burners off) and any interfaces are open. This may mean
that others could use it but if w4l has a large established market then
isn't this part of the whole open game? The problem with having a series
of individuals around the net making bespoke kernels is perpetratingjust
the fragmentation that Linux does suffer from - and MS are giggling all
the way to the bank.
It should be possible to include a switch in the compile stage to select
the w4l hooks, just as it is for SMP or RAID or something. The drivers
could be loaded with a usual insmod approach. I think if the objection is
coming from the open movement then it is in danger of shooting itself in
the foot and if netraverse is guilty then it should think carefully about
the licencing of the kernel parts of w4l.
Just my 0.01Euros' worth.
John
_______________________________________________
Win4Lin-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.netraverse.com/mailman/listinfo/win4lin-users
