<quote who="Theron William Stanford"> > So, Red Hat is forking? Bad, bad, bad. "If I really wanted to"? You > mean to say they're making decisions for me and giving me stuff that I > wouldn't have otherwise and probably don't even need unless "I really > wanted" it? Sounds like there's stuff going in that shouldn't, and I > don't want a dirty kernel.
I wouldn't say that RedHat is forking the kernel. Most of the patches they apply are from members of the kernel development community, not ones they've brewed up in house. This is definitely not a sign of RH taking the kernel in a new direction, but rather applying some patches, which are generally not new software packages, but rather enhancements to existing kernel features. An example (though not sure RH does this) is the O(1) scheduler, which is just an enhancement to the kernel's stock scheduler. You are most definitely not getting extra software with this kind of kernel patch, just improving one already in the kernel. So in a nutshell, RH just chooses to configure their kernel in one way or another and then gives you that one. They turn off some features and enable others, and even change some altogether, but I wouldn't worry about a fork, or even extra software in a kernel patch. The beauty is that it is very very easy to get your own kernel and compile. After compiling, it's just a single file you have to install. RH always leaves the option to recompile their kernel and disable all the features you don't want/need. It's really pretty easy. Maybe it's time for another kernel compiling meeting? As for freedome from a distro, you may find a new definition of freedom there, as you may end up without much support. --Dave ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://phantom.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
