> > 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
Having operational hooks available is not the same as "open source."
Microsoft provides the former with their developers kits. They're
definitely not open source however.
> 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
No, the reference that was made to "open source" relates to the open
source movement and it means, quite literally, that the source code is
open and available. Win4Lin is not open source.
> 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.
While the model is a bit hard for proprietary companies to comprehend,
it isn't a model of fragmentation. Rather it's a model of "try it; if
people like it it will show up in all versions of the kernel. If they
don't, it won't." See the interview of Linux Torvalds in the current
Linux Magazine is you need clarification on this point.
> 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
This is done with the Win4Lin kernel patch. You can't have a switch
for specific hardware or software support without adding it as a patch
or module to the kernel. Likewise, you can leave out a lot of this
stuff when you compile if it doesn't apply to your hardware.
> 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
Before you discuss what is/isn't right in the open source movement,
you need to understand it. If something is not open source the
ability to distribute it as part of an open source product is very
limited. For instance, unless it's open source and not proprietary,
it would be impossible to include it in the freely downloadable iso
disks that are available for virtually any Linux distribution.
Proprietary software has to carry the license agreement and thus has
to be placed on a separate CD from the GPL stuff that is Linux. Linux
Mandrake has done this with some software (as demo versions) in its
shrink-wrapped packages and they could do it with Win4Lin. But it
would be nevertheless quite separate from the Linux distribution
itself.
Cheers --- Larry
_______________________________________________
Win4Lin-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.netraverse.com/mailman/listinfo/win4lin-users
