Re: Standard Linux (Was What is up with Redhat 7.0?)
There is no need for a law requiring a 'standard' kernel in any distro, and there is no chance people would follow any such rule. So long as people know their distro kernel is patched and, if they want to apply some 3rd party patch, we advise them they may want to obtain and install 'clean' sources from kernel.org. This is the approach I take in my kernel-config chapters for the Unleashed books, and it is also the advice given on the RedHat website (or at least it was last I looked) Anyone who knows they need and will apply a 3rd party patch likely knows how to obtain and compile a fresh kernel (or can follow my chapter ;) A case in point is the Trelos Win4Linux windows 'emulator'. This is shipped as a patch against what I call "the cannonical sources" and fails on some of the more exotic distros. Frankly, I don't think Trelos should bother shipping 'distro flavours' of their patch, and instead, distros should ship a diff-set which would incrementally migrate cannonical sources to match their distro package. That way, if I want Trelos' software, I get the kernel.org sources, patch them for Trelos, then selectively add what I want from RedHat or Mandrake or Debian or whatever. IMHO, this has a far greater chance of success across a wider range of scenarios. However it goes, though, it is not our problem, it is entirely up to the distros to sort this out among themselves and the ISVs. -- Gary Lawrence Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: office voice/fax: 01 519 4222723 T(!c)Inc Business Innovation through Open Source http://www.teledyn.com M:I-3 - Documenting the Linux kernel: http://kernelbook.sourceforge.net "You don't play what you know; you play what you hear." --- Miles Davis - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Standard Linux (Was What is up with Redhat 7.0?)
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Michael Peddemors wrote: >On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote: > >> However, I think attacking other free softwrae projects because of *bugs* >> is just childish at this point - after all, this discussion was about >> supporting distributions that - without technical reasons - make their >> products incompatible to what one would call "standard linux", and that I >> do not think that the kernel should support such doings. >> > > >That RedHat Thread was degrading into a name calling match... >But it does have one core element that maybe should be discussed, and that can be a >relevant and productive discussion for this list. > >'Standard Linux' >Should the core kernel define a standard Linux?? >And what does the community think of distros that veer from the standard? >Should the 'standard' be set in stone? > >ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the >standard kernel? If a distro has a patch that they want in the kernel, and the >mainstream kernel doesn't feel it belongs, should it be labeled differently? >Do we go with a Debian Linux, Redhat Linux, etc.. accepting that they are all >different, but from a common heritage or should there be a 'seal of approval' so that >a distro can indicate it is 100% linux mainstream, as in >SomeDistro Linux, '100% Linux Standard Compliant' This has come up in the past. 1. Most of the "distribution" is actually code from a totally independant (from Linux) project - the FSF Hurd. 2. Linux only refers to the kernel. Not the distribution. Most of the utilities (when you get away from device/kernel setup/logging/initialization) is from that project. I believe R. Stallman would prefer that the distributions be referred to differently (Hurd/linux? That wasn't quite it... I don't remember what he said specificly). It had to do with the source of most of the things that make a system work - cp, ls, mkdir, gcc, libc,... These all come from a different location, they are not part of Linux, although the Linux kernel is useless without them. >Thoughts?? I know our Linux Distro is non-conformant because of our FreeS/WAN and >encryption patches.. Yes, we are still Linux, but I know we shouldn't get the '100% >...Compliant' label.. Of course, from a marketing standpoint, I would hate to carry >that stigma, but I think it is prudent that our customers have the right to know that >their experience with other Linux's may not be sufficient, or that down the road they >may be forced to use us for support, or get/buy 'LinuxMagic' software rather than >'100% Compliant' versions of the software if we choose to not be compliant. >That is the risk of using our product if we are not compliant, even if we perhaps >happen, or claim to be the best/greatest/fastest thing since sliced bread, and blow >away the '100% Compliant' version. At that point we aren't really Linux but a Linux >variant that is still opensource, uses the Linux metholdolgy, and albeit a close >dirivitive.. but still not really Linux.. No distribution is "Linux". That is the name of the kernel. Now it does happen that I would (personal preference here) have those utilities that are built to interface directly with the kernel (ifconfig, init, hdparm, ...) to be provided from the same location as the kernel. That way the dependancies between kernel and these applications would remain consistant. But.. they arn't. No big deal. Even these utilities (frequently I understand) come from BSD/netBSD/OpenBSD (whereever) distributions. Each distribution appears to be aimed at a specific user base, some larger than others. These distributions should not be penalized for providing additional support. After all, that is what they make their money from. Penalizing distributions for "compliancy" doesn't make sense - Would that also apply to a specialty hardware vendor that provides a driver? After all, it's not in the "standard"... The areas of non-compliancy are usually in specific bug patches, and drivers. Sometimes even in the compiler used. This IS up to the vendors. They have to support their customer base, and I have no problem with it. I do believe they should be documenting the uniqueness better. As far as I've seen, the distributions accept what are "best practices" from a variety of places, AT&T System V, BSD, Sun OS 4.x, Sun Solaris 2.x, whereever something worked, and worked well, it has been adopted. There were/are some "adjusting" to make it all be relatively seamless; and that is another place of "compliancy" as well as "if it works cleanly, and well then that is the direction to go". Linux runs in some systems that are NOT considered a "Unix" environment. It is still Linux even if it does have custom drivers, and applications. >Some companies are using 'open-source' monickers as a marketing ploy... As if >'open-source' means that it is some sort of industry standard.. And although the >freedom of open source in the
Re: Standard Linux (Was What is up with Redhat 7.0?)
> 'Standard Linux' > Should the core kernel define a standard Linux?? To an extent. I will tell you the rules I try to follow for 2.2.x o Never add an ABI that is not standardised in 2.3.x by Linus o If drivers/ioctl interfaces are added to 2.2 first I try to be very fussy about them because an ABI is hardest to fix > And what does the community think of distros that veer from the standard? > Should the 'standard' be set in stone? I certainly don't want it set in stone. All of a sudden I then become some kind of multi-vendor approval service. That is wrong. > ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the > standard kernel? If a distro has a patch that they want in the kernel, and the Compatible with yes, but without additional features - I think thats bad. The Linux Standard Base project is about defining a standard 'Linux' - which might btw equally be a fully compliant Linux emulation on FreeBSD for all it matters to application vendors. > (Side Note: had one of my sysadmins that needed to install a server with a DAC960 >Raid > controller.. The standard Linux kernel had no support for it so he had a choice. Im confused there. Leonard has been submitted DAC960 patches to the standard kernel first since 1.2. or so. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Standard Linux (Was What is up with Redhat 7.0?)
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Michael Peddemors wrote: > ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the > standard kernel? If a distro has a patch that they want in the kernel, and the > mainstream kernel doesn't feel it belongs, should it be labeled differently? > Do we go with a Debian Linux, Redhat Linux, etc.. accepting that they are all > different, but from a common heritage Why not? Worked for BSD just fine. > or should there be a 'seal of approval' so that > a distro can indicate it is 100% linux mainstream, as in > SomeDistro Linux, '100% Linux Standard Compliant' Yeah... And then we'll have every marketdroid and his mom _really_ trying hard to get every patch into the main tree. Thanks, but no thanks. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Standard Linux (Was What is up with Redhat 7.0?)
On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 02:39:00PM -0700, Michael Peddemors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That RedHat Thread was degrading into a name calling match... And a pile of misunderstandings as well. > ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the > standard kernel? Define compatible. Your FreeS/WAN does not make binaries compiled on your distro inherently incompatible with others. Of course, gnu/linux distributions are free to drop a lot of things (like the gnu prefix) and create something entirely non-standard. However, major distributions also have a responsibility. Also, what means "open" in this respect? Should redhat or suse be able to create a version of the linux kernel that runs ELF+ binaries and generates them by default under some circumstances? Requiring special redhat/suse packages to run them on other distros? This is what I feel RH is currently doing, and did in the past, although the past problems could have been simple bugs like in any other project. and the responsibility argument really only applies to the big players, not something like RTLinux. (I do agree with most of the unquoted parts of your mail, btw.) -- -==- | ==-- _ | ---==---(_)__ __ __ Marc Lehmann +-- --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e| -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+ The choice of a GNU generation | | - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: Standard Linux (Was What is up with Redhat 7.0?)
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000, Marc Lehmann wrote: > However, I think attacking other free softwrae projects because of *bugs* > is just childish at this point - after all, this discussion was about > supporting distributions that - without technical reasons - make their > products incompatible to what one would call "standard linux", and that I > do not think that the kernel should support such doings. > That RedHat Thread was degrading into a name calling match... But it does have one core element that maybe should be discussed, and that can be a relevant and productive discussion for this list. 'Standard Linux' Should the core kernel define a standard Linux?? And what does the community think of distros that veer from the standard? Should the 'standard' be set in stone? ie should we say that ALL distros have to ship with, and be compatible with the standard kernel? If a distro has a patch that they want in the kernel, and the mainstream kernel doesn't feel it belongs, should it be labeled differently? Do we go with a Debian Linux, Redhat Linux, etc.. accepting that they are all different, but from a common heritage or should there be a 'seal of approval' so that a distro can indicate it is 100% linux mainstream, as in SomeDistro Linux, '100% Linux Standard Compliant' Thoughts?? I know our Linux Distro is non-conformant because of our FreeS/WAN and encryption patches.. Yes, we are still Linux, but I know we shouldn't get the '100% ...Compliant' label.. Of course, from a marketing standpoint, I would hate to carry that stigma, but I think it is prudent that our customers have the right to know that their experience with other Linux's may not be sufficient, or that down the road they may be forced to use us for support, or get/buy 'LinuxMagic' software rather than '100% Compliant' versions of the software if we choose to not be compliant. That is the risk of using our product if we are not compliant, even if we perhaps happen, or claim to be the best/greatest/fastest thing since sliced bread, and blow away the '100% Compliant' version. At that point we aren't really Linux but a Linux variant that is still opensource, uses the Linux metholdolgy, and albeit a close dirivitive.. but still not really Linux.. Some companies are using 'open-source' monickers as a marketing ploy... As if 'open-source' means that it is some sort of industry standard.. And although the freedom of open source in the development community means great things for all, the end consumer wants standards. Maybe it is time that standards, (And accepting patches or changes to the kernel while rejecting others IS a standard whether we call it such or not) are openly claimed to be such, even if those standards are dictated by Linus himself, the community at large by consensus, or a representing body. Either that or I see a very real possiblilty of fragmentation of the development of Linux products as the corporate needs start to dictate what 'Linux' is.. Oh, and don't get me wrong, fragmentation will happen as two people differ on what they think is best.. Otherwise we wouldn't have so many flavours of Unices out there too. Some guys at Berkely might still be dictating their thoughts of what is best.. and we would all be using it.. Linus?? I wouldn't mind hearing you thoughts on formally declaring a 'standard' on kernels..rather than an assumption that it is :> (Side Note: had one of my sysadmins that needed to install a server with a DAC960 Raid controller.. The standard Linux kernel had no support for it so he had a choice. Patch it, or use the RedHat version. Do we say that this controller is not supported by Linux, but is supported by RedHat Linux? Are we not then saying we have two different OS's??) Michael Peddemors - Senior Consultant Unix Administration - WebSite Hosting Network Services - Programming Wizard Internet Services http://www.wizard.ca Linux Support Specialist - http://www.linuxmagic.com (604) 589-0037 Beautiful British Columbia, Canada - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
