Sorry -just need to vent
petrus4 at tpg.com.au
Thu Aug 9 11:06:36 PDT 2007
> Would it be so hard for the kernel guys to add a "noinitrdconfig"
> target to the makefile that would generate a kernel config with
>From everything I've seen, the kernel developers are a fairly insular,
single-purpose kind of group these days. If what you're trying to do here
is of interest to business, then try submitting it; they might accept it.
If it's something only non-commercial users are likely to want, however,
they'll probably ignore you. I remember reading about why Con Kolivas quit
as a developer a week or so back. Because the work he was doing was for end
users; i.e., the desktop, they basically ignored him until he got sick of
it, and then because he got some press, Linus predictably tried to whitewash
it and make excuses afterwards.
IMHO a really awesome thing would be if someone created a universal
implementation of whatever bits of a kernel needed to be universal,
(presumably module framework, executable format, and maybe the bootloader)
and then we saw a lot of people doing completely their own thing outside
that. Some would be really bloated, some would be really efficient, some
would be tied primarily to one compiler, (say GCC) and others would be based
around the other compilers. (Amsterdam, Tendra, ICC) You'd also see
multiple implementations of things like job control, memory management, and
so forth...and even people like me who sadly don't have any idea how to
actually write a kernel from scratch but who still know that they'd like
another one, (in my own case primarily in order to have a kernel which was
entirely free of association with/dependency on the FSF, even including
GCC - not even the BSD kernels have that) could shop between the various
implementations in order to find the best implementation for the specific
tasks they were doing.
I know anyone commercially minded (or unintelligent) here will wince in
horror at the idea of the supposed anarchic splintering that the above
scenario would lead to...same as how people hate the fact that there are so
many different distros and package management implementations in existence
already. What said people don't understand though, is that that is actually
how evolutionary biology works; you have a large number of potential
candidates, and each gets selected based on their fitness for the given
purpose. Monoculture isn't a good thing, and the only reason why most of
the people who want one do so is because having a monoculture means they
don't have to think.
More information about the alfs-discuss