Professional Web Applications Themes

Why not? - FreeBSD

Hello everybdody I read an interview of Linus Torvald made by Linux Magazine. In that interview Linus mentioned the following: "On the other hand, no, Linux does not have that stupid notion of having totally separate kernel development for different issues. If you want a secure BSD, you get OpenBSD; if you want a usable BSD, you get FreeBSD; and if you want BSD on other architectures, you get NetBSD. That___s just idiotic, to have different teams worry about different things." I dont want to critize what Linus stated above. However, I find a very valid point when he says ...

  1. #1

    Default Why not?

    Hello everybdody

    I read an interview of Linus Torvald made by Linux Magazine. In that interview Linus mentioned the following:

    "On the other hand, no, Linux does not have that stupid notion of having totally separate kernel development for different issues. If you want a secure BSD, you get OpenBSD; if you want a usable BSD, you get FreeBSD; and if you want BSD on other architectures, you get NetBSD. That___s just idiotic, to have different teams worry about different things."

    I dont want to critize what Linus stated above. However, I find a very valid point when he says that every BSD version team is woking in different directions.

    My question is this:

    Why not all three teams work together for just one BSD version?

    At the moment there are three groups of developers and users working in the same issues. I think if we should all work together and create well rounded BSD version for us users and corporate clients. Imagine a BSD version that is portable (NetBSD), that is very secured (OpenBSD) and that is a good Destop solution (FreeBSD).



    Aperez Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Why not?

    In the last episode (Mar 12), Aperez said: 

    (don't forget dragonfly and OS X)

    Might as well ask the literally dozens (hundreds?) of Linux
    distributions why they are dividing /their/ efforts, keeping their own
    custom patchsets, installers, bug databases, etc.

    --
    Dan Nelson
    com
    Dan Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Why not?

     
    I guess Linus didn't have anything to say about the 200 different
    versions of Linux, with their 200 different installers, and 200
    different file hierachies, and their multiple package management systems.
     
    If I remember correctly, there are multiple versions of BSD because the
    teams could not work together.

    thx
    bsdzz Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Why not?

    Aperez wrote: 

    Here's irony posed as a question:

    .... and how many distros of Linux are there?


    --
    Best regards,
    Chris

    Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty, and the pig
    likes it!
    Chris Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Why not?

    On 2005-03-12 12:38, Aperez <com> wrote: 

    The important detail, I guess, that makes Linus wrong or at least not entirely
    correct in making this statement is that the three BSD-derived systems he
    mentions are different systems altogether. They are *NOT* different sets of
    packages collected and distributed around the same kernel.

    The same can be said about Linux distributions; some times even more so. One
    cannot compare any version of Slackware Linux vs. Redhat Linux vs. Mandrake
    vs. SuSE vs. Gentoo vs. Ubuntu vs. the Linux distribution "de jour". At any
    given point in time, one can find Linux distributions that come with kernel
    version 2.2, others with 2.4, a third group coming with some minor release of
    2.6.x, etc.

    Having said that, I don't see why Linux can be considered as "one system".
    Even if it were, I don't see why four different systems (FreeBSD, NetBSD,
    OpenBSD and Dragonfly BSD) are bad because they are not "one system". Not to
    mention, that this is partly wrong because the BSD systems -- the internals of
    their kernels put aside for a while -- have a great deal of similarities
    between then; many more than any randomly chosen set of Linux distributions.

    What Linus fails to see when he makes comments like the one above are some
    very crucial points:

    - A "system" is not just its kernel.

    - Linux "systems" have a lot more differences than he implies.

    - The BSD systems, when seen as a whole and not just as a kernel, have
    many more similarities among them than any set of at least two
    different Linux systems.
     

    They do, in fact. A lot more than Linus implies. They just use their
    different BSD systems to develop the things they most like.

    Very often, what new features developed on one BSD system is ported or copied
    over to other BSD systems. Bug fixes that are made on one of the BSDs are
    many times fixed in a short time in other BSDs too.
     

    Diversity is not bad. Linus is just wrong in stating that the BSDs are
    somehow silly for not making the One, True BSD(TM)(C)(R).

    - Giorgos

    Giorgos Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Why not?

    Aperez wrote:
     

    At the risk of really *being* a troll, I'll philosophize apart from
    the technical world for a moment.

    Some people are born, grow up, and when the time is
    right, based on love, respect, and trust, they start a family.
    (You can view ours under /usr/share/misc/ on most systems).

    Others are born, grow up, discover they are popular and
    fsck around with anyone who'll have them. They say that
    it's more fun, and maybe it is for a while; nature takes its
    course and the seeds scatter where they may....

    On one hand you'll usually (rules exist to prove exceptions,
    right?) have a relatively small group of well-adjusted
    individuals after several years.

    On the other, you'll have a legions of messed-up ized
    malcontents.

    Draw your own conclusions....

    Kevin Kinsey

    P.S. I have nothing personal against Linux, Mr. Torvalds, or
    $name_here. It's just that I'm a family-oriented person ;-)
    Kevin Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Why not?

    On Saturday 12 March 2005 09:38 am, Aperez <com> wrote: 

    The way I look at it is this (these are the cirstances which matter
    to me - YMMV). When I want to install BSD on embedded hardware or Apple
    hardware, I use NetBSD. When I want to install BSD on a box to use as a
    dedicated firewall, network logging/snort machine, or other security
    apparatus, I use OpenBSD. When I want to install BSD on a box to use as
    a server or a desktop/workstation, I install FreeBSD.

    When I want to use Linux as a desktop (I haven't installed any Linux
    servers for a while now), I use Slackware. If I recommend a beginner
    Linux distro to a newbie, it's usually Mandrake or SuSE. If I recommend
    an enterprise Linux distro, it's usually RedHat. If I recommend a Linux
    distro that is for more experienced users, I'd recommend Debian, Gentoo
    or (my personal preference) Slackware. However, if any of those people
    are comfortable with *nix but are looking for something different, like
    maybe they would appreciate an OS developed cohesively, rather than a
    kernel with various distros which add any of a variety of userland
    tools, I recommend FreeBSD. If they find they like it, then I tell them
    about the more specialized flavors.

    Linus is free to disagree with the direction BSD has taken over the
    years. However, I'm a bit surprised he's knocking the forking of code.
    Isn't that an inherent strength of open source? He's free to develop in
    his own manner, which has proven to be successful for his particular
    concept, but it's strength is that it's chaotic and allows a variety of
    userland configurations and setups. BSD is more disciplined but rigid
    in its choice of userland tools, which is its strength. The issue of
    code forking is ancillary, and the history is somewhat political, but
    the teams all share code and concepts.

    I'm not sure why this is a problem for anyone. However, if you think, as
    an example, Theo de Raadt should give up OpenBSD and come back to
    develop for FreeBSD, then feel free to drop him an email, as well as
    the core FreeBSD team. Oh, and make sure to let us know how it goes ;)

    - jt
    Joshua Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Why not?

    bsdzz wrote:
     
    > I guess Linus didn't have anything to say about the 200 different
    > versions of Linux, with their 200 different installers, and 200
    > different file hierachies, and their multiple package management systems.

    > If I remember correctly, there are multiple versions of BSD because
    > the teams could not work together.[/ref]

    Indeed. I'm not judging nor do I know what its all about, but things
    like this won't bring the BSD's together...

    <quote>
    From: Theo de Raadt <openbsd.org>
    To: org
    Subject: [BSD-Misc] FreeBSD hiding security stuff

    A few FreeBSD developers apparently have found some security issue
    of some sort affecting i386 operating systems in some cases.

    They have refused to give us real details.

    A promise is now being made.

    If a bug is found in OpenSSH, which we believe to have security
    consequences, we wil inform FreeBSD last.

    Fair is fair.

    I really wish it was not this way, but after a week of trying to get the
    policy to be fixed, we are changing our policy as well.

    Without immediate action from them to repair their policy, and a public
    apology for this, that policy will stand.
    </quote>

    Beni.

    beni Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Why not?


    On Mar 12, 2005, at 2:45 PM, Chris wrote:
     
    >
    > Here's irony posed as a question:
    >
    > ... and how many distros of Linux are there?[/ref]

    I think the difference is that Linus is working on the Linux kernel.
    The distros, numerous as they are, all run the same kernel. Those
    separate distros package the other applications and userland apps and
    default configs. The kernel itself isn't under separate forks, whereas
    from what I understand the kernels for FBSD/NetBSD/OBSD are very
    similar, share a lot of crossed-over code, but are not identical and
    have separate "management" teams behind them.

    The Linux distros keep getting their kernel workings from one group
    (even if they tweak them). The BSDs do not.

    Bart Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Why not?

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFCNLHsbTXoRwEYo9IRAuzOAJ91+yPpw/vXjARo9Tvdo2Z5i/rYhgCfbl1a
    Fu/d67ZYMiNNRNYRPPlFBXg=
    =SjZE
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    Loren Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Why not?


    On Mar 13, 2005, at 4:34 PM, Loren M. Lang wrote:
     
    >>
    >> I think the difference is that Linus is working on the Linux kernel.
    >> The distros, numerous as they are, all run the same kernel. Those
    >> separate distros package the other applications and userland apps and
    >> default configs. The kernel itself isn't under separate forks,
    >> whereas
    >> from what I understand the kernels for FBSD/NetBSD/OBSD are very
    >> similar, share a lot of crossed-over code, but are not identical and
    >> have separate "management" teams behind them.[/ref]
    >
    > While each distros kernel is probably less different than a NetBSD vs.
    > FreeBSD kernel, there still each different and a lot more of them. I
    > had to download and install a very specific kernel from redhat to use
    > on
    > my debian system so I could use my wireless card.
    >
    > Also, some features can very wildly like IPSEC, some distros patch in
    > FreeSWAN's stack, others the KAME stack.[/ref]

    Some vendors may be directly patching certain features, for the most
    part you shouldn't have to download a specific kernel for a feature to
    work in Linux unless you wanted it pre-packaged. You should be able to
    update it by downloading the latest features, running the config to
    enable/disable what features you want compiled into the kernel (or as
    modules), then compile it.

    When everything else breaks because the kernel version changed and
    something specific is linked to something that depends on something
    from the previous kernel's config, then you get to delve into some real
    fun. But still, there is one source kernel, and unless the vendors did
    something proprietary (which I don't believe they're supposed to be
    allowed to do), you can compile your own kernel with your own set of
    enabled and disabled features from the Linux kernel source tree whether
    you're running Red Hat or Debian; it may break if that particular
    distro is depending on certain features as you have it configured and
    you fubar the new kernel's config, but it is still a matter of tweaking
    that configuration to get it working again.

    I can't download the sources for NetBSD's kernel, compile it on my
    FreeBSD box, and have it work no matter how much tweaking I do to the
    configuration...if I'm wrong, please someone correct me.

    I *think* (and I'm not following the story closely) what Linus was
    saying is that it's stupid to have so many people working in parallel
    on such similar cousins...NetBSD, OpenBSD, and FreeBSD. They share
    code, they share info, but optimize for certain goals and have a lot of
    redundancy. Linux's kernel is Linux's kernel, modified by individuals
    but still one big bulky source tree to work from. Is one way less
    intelligent than others? I don't know. I never studied it :-) All I
    know is that in general, for most end users, it doesn't matter...if
    they stick with a particular distro and their sources and packages,
    then things tend to work. Linux has fragmented so much that it's
    difficult to get a package aimed at distro A and have it work on distro
    B despite them both being Linux. For the BSD's, it's pretty much
    always worked as if it's in the port tree, you have the package in
    question work. Otherwise, work from sources. And instructions to get
    a package working on *BSD pretty much always work whereas for Linux you
    may run Debian but find instructions for what you're trying to do
    written for an audience running Red Hat, so you need to translate
    things as you go along.

    Bart Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Why not?

    On Sun, Mar 13, 2005 at 04:53:36PM -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote: 
    > >
    > >While each distros kernel is probably less different than a NetBSD vs.
    > >FreeBSD kernel, there still each different and a lot more of them. I
    > >had to download and install a very specific kernel from redhat to use
    > >on
    > >my debian system so I could use my wireless card.
    > >
    > >Also, some features can very wildly like IPSEC, some distros patch in
    > >FreeSWAN's stack, others the KAME stack.[/ref]
    >
    > Some vendors may be directly patching certain features, for the most
    > part you shouldn't have to download a specific kernel for a feature to
    > work in Linux unless you wanted it pre-packaged. You should be able to
    > update it by downloading the latest features, running the config to
    > enable/disable what features you want compiled into the kernel (or as
    > modules), then compile it.[/ref]

    Well, the vendor for my wireless card provided a binary-only driver with
    a small open-source wrapper. The wrapper was just a piece of garbage
    though and compiling it for a different kernel didn't work. The driver
    was designed for redhat's 2.4.18-3 kernel. That kernel had a couple of
    issues and redhat issued an update, 2.4.18-10. The wireless card driver
    wouldn't even work on the -10 kernel, it would crash my system
    everytime, I had to use the -3 kernel to use it at all. This is one of
    the problems/features of the linux kernel, it doesn't work with binary
    device drivers like the *BSD kernel do.
     

    --
    I sense much NT in you.
    NT leads to Bluescreen.
    Bluescreen leads to downtime.
    Downtime leads to suffering.
    NT is the path to the darkside.
    Powerful Unix is.

    Public Key: ftp://ftp.tallye.com/pub/lorenl_pubkey.asc
    Fingerprint: CEE1 AAE2 F66C 59B5 34CA C415 6D35 E847 0118 A3D2


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFCNLqCbTXoRwEYo9IRAmZSAJ9RqJJizEjxOauBkurVk1 p1BCWQYACfcGPS
    97stclNWj0JGBVIFslZHZFE=
    =qmwA
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    Loren Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Why not?

    On 2005-03-13 16:53, Bart Silverstrim <com> wrote: 
    >
    > Some vendors may be directly patching certain features, for the most
    > part you shouldn't have to download a specific kernel for a feature to
    > work in Linux unless you wanted it pre-packaged. You should be able
    > to update it by downloading the latest features, running the config to
    > enable/disable what features you want compiled into the kernel (or as
    > modules), then compile it.[/ref]

    On the contrary, there are numerous cases when local patches, specific
    to the distribution of Linux that is used, are used:

    https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2002-November/msg00050.html
    http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2004-February/msg00018.html

    Backported fixes are not evil, but they are bad when they are available
    only if you are running "FooLinux version X".
     

    Hardly. Configuration changes will never fix a driver that is only
    available as a patch to the kernel source tree, when the patch fails
    to apply, build or install correctly -- a common case with some drivers
    (i.e. Cisco VPN or SysKonnect).

    It's a bit surprising that Linus dismisses the BSD kernel teams as
    fragmented, when one considers the multitude of sites and the dozens of
    "local hacks, patches" and other interesting stuff one has to do in
    order to customize the kernel installation of a Linux kernel.

    Let us put aside for a while the blatant error of considering three
    distinct systems as one, when they are just that: three distinct systems
    that just happen to share a lot of code and like cooperating on work
    that is a benefit for all three.

    There *is* one place where I can go to download my FreeBSD stuff. There
    is one web page, and not a zillion different sites that I have to search
    through for hours. There is a single CVSup mirror that I can use both
    at work and at home. But that's because I'm using _one_ of the BSD
    systems. People who use some other BSD-derived system go to their own
    sets of sites, mirrors, etc.
     

    Actually, you can. The NetBSD folks state that only a system relatively
    compliant with POSIX is required for cross-building NetBSD on a local,
    non-NetBSD system:

    http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/BUILDING?rev=1.53&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
    (See the REQUIREMENTS section.)
     

    Redundancy is good from a survival perspective. Diversity is also good,
    from an evolutionary perspective. For every bad thing Linus can say
    about having separate teams working on the systems they enjoy working
    with, we can probably come up with htwo reasons why this is good.
     

    Hardly. Otherwise, it would be easy to point a browser to a single,
    central place and browse the history of the Linux kernel from 0.9.x to
    1.x and then to 2.x. The fact that some bits are available in a
    proprietary repository somewhere is not good enough.

    In general, it's a nice interview of Linus and very enjoyable to read,
    but I'm afraid he is not right about everything when he talks about the
    BSDs; which is not very surprising, I guess.

    - Giorgos

    Giorgos Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Why not?

    http://www.linux-mag.com/content/view/60/112/ is the interview, btw


    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:39:53 +0200, Giorgos Keramidas
    <upatras.gr> wrote: 
    > >
    > > Some vendors may be directly patching certain features, for the most
    > > part you shouldn't have to download a specific kernel for a feature to
    > > work in Linux unless you wanted it pre-packaged. You should be able
    > > to update it by downloading the latest features, running the config to
    > > enable/disable what features you want compiled into the kernel (or as
    > > modules), then compile it.[/ref]
    >
    > On the contrary, there are numerous cases when local patches, specific
    > to the distribution of Linux that is used, are used:
    >
    > https://www.redhat.com/archives/linux-lvm/2002-November/msg00050.html
    > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2004-February/msg00018.html
    >
    > Backported fixes are not evil, but they are bad when they are available
    > only if you are running "FooLinux version X".

    >
    > Hardly. Configuration changes will never fix a driver that is only
    > available as a patch to the kernel source tree, when the patch fails
    > to apply, build or install correctly -- a common case with some drivers
    > (i.e. Cisco VPN or SysKonnect).
    >
    > It's a bit surprising that Linus dismisses the BSD kernel teams as
    > fragmented, when one considers the multitude of sites and the dozens of
    > "local hacks, patches" and other interesting stuff one has to do in
    > order to customize the kernel installation of a Linux kernel.
    >
    > Let us put aside for a while the blatant error of considering three
    > distinct systems as one, when they are just that: three distinct systems
    > that just happen to share a lot of code and like cooperating on work
    > that is a benefit for all three.
    >
    > There *is* one place where I can go to download my FreeBSD stuff. There
    > is one web page, and not a zillion different sites that I have to search
    > through for hours. There is a single CVSup mirror that I can use both
    > at work and at home. But that's because I'm using _one_ of the BSD
    > systems. People who use some other BSD-derived system go to their own
    > sets of sites, mirrors, etc.

    >
    > Actually, you can. The NetBSD folks state that only a system relatively
    > compliant with POSIX is required for cross-building NetBSD on a local,
    > non-NetBSD system:
    >
    > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/BUILDING?rev=1.53&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
    > (See the REQUIREMENTS section.)

    >
    > Redundancy is good from a survival perspective. Diversity is also good,
    > from an evolutionary perspective. For every bad thing Linus can say
    > about having separate teams working on the systems they enjoy working
    > with, we can probably come up with htwo reasons why this is good.

    >
    > Hardly. Otherwise, it would be easy to point a browser to a single,
    > central place and browse the history of the Linux kernel from 0.9.x to
    > 1.x and then to 2.x. The fact that some bits are available in a
    > proprietary repository somewhere is not good enough.
    >
    > In general, it's a nice interview of Linus and very enjoyable to read,
    > but I'm afraid he is not right about everything when he talks about the
    > BSDs; which is not very surprising, I guess.
    >
    > - Giorgos
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > org mailing list
    > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
    > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "org"
    >[/ref]
    Josh Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Why not?


    On Mar 14, 2005, at 7:39 AM, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
     

    Just for drivers? I wasn't sure what DM was...are any of these patches
    that were released available as source for other Linux kernels, or are
    these things being released without ever giving out the source to
    integrate with the primary Linux kernel tree?
     
    >
    > Hardly. Configuration changes will never fix a driver that is only
    > available as a patch to the kernel source tree, when the patch fails
    > to apply, build or install correctly -- a common case with some drivers
    > (i.e. Cisco VPN or SysKonnect).[/ref]

    You're right, if you have an application that requires modification to
    the kernel then config changes won't fix it. But that isn't the common
    case, and you should be able to take that application and apply it to
    the kernel tree source to create the working version, no? Or are they
    distro specific? In the few times I ran into it the "melding" wasn't
    distro-specific.
     

    Then it would best be summed up as a difference in opinion over
    operations management and organization management.
     
    >
    > Actually, you can. The NetBSD folks state that only a system
    > relatively
    > compliant with POSIX is required for cross-building NetBSD on a local,
    > non-NetBSD system:
    >
    > http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/BUILDING?rev=1.53&content-
    > type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
    > (See the REQUIREMENTS section.)[/ref]

    No, I didn't mean compile it and deploy it. I mean replace my system's
    kernel with that kernel and have it work. The source trees are
    different, the resulting kernel would expect to work on a NetBSD
    *system*, not a FreeBSD system with a NetBSD kernel.
     

    Again, it's a difference in organization and management opinion.
     

    I was under the impression that kernel.org was the authoritative source
    for the Linux kernel. What people are doing on the side was their own
    project. *shrug* I could be wrong :-)
     

    No, but don't discount editing of the interview as a factor too in
    accuracy.

    But on the other hand, Linus doesn't really give a flip about BSD. He
    has his own project, and he does (justifiably) have a lot to be proud
    of (at the risk of inflating his ego more). He doesn't sound like he's
    really all that involved in distro flamewars or whatnot. So...it's
    just another article for people to read :-)

    Bart Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Why not?

    On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 10:55:00AM -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote: 
    >
    > Just for drivers? I wasn't sure what DM was...are any of these patches
    > that were released available as source for other Linux kernels, or are
    > these things being released without ever giving out the source to
    > integrate with the primary Linux kernel tree?[/ref]

    Device mapper which is to linux as geom is to freebsd. The code was
    already part of the official linux 2.6 sources, redhat just wanted to
    use a 2.4 kernel, but still have the device mapper system up to date
    with 2.6.
     
    > >
    > >Hardly. Configuration changes will never fix a driver that is only
    > >available as a patch to the kernel source tree, when the patch fails
    > >to apply, build or install correctly -- a common case with some drivers
    > >(i.e. Cisco VPN or SysKonnect).[/ref]
    >
    > You're right, if you have an application that requires modification to
    > the kernel then config changes won't fix it. But that isn't the common
    > case, and you should be able to take that application and apply it to
    > the kernel tree source to create the working version, no? Or are they
    > distro specific? In the few times I ran into it the "melding" wasn't
    > distro-specific.[/ref]

    The biggest problem with all the various linux kernel is that, since
    linus chose to make linux be intolerant of binary drivers, you need the
    exact kernel that a driver was compiled for. Some vendors like nvidia
    provide a wrapper around their binary driver to avoid this, but many
    vendors shipping binary-only driver do not as was the case with my wifi
    card. I have to have one specific kernel of one specific linux distro,
    neither of which I was using at the time.
     
    >
    > Then it would best be summed up as a difference in opinion over
    > operations management and organization management.
    >  
    > >
    > >Actually, you can. The NetBSD folks state that only a system
    > >relatively
    > >compliant with POSIX is required for cross-building NetBSD on a local,
    > >non-NetBSD system:
    > >
    > >http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/BUILDING?rev=1.53&content-
    > >type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
    > >(See the REQUIREMENTS section.)[/ref]
    >
    > No, I didn't mean compile it and deploy it. I mean replace my system's
    > kernel with that kernel and have it work. The source trees are
    > different, the resulting kernel would expect to work on a NetBSD
    > *system*, not a FreeBSD system with a NetBSD kernel.
    >  
    >
    > Again, it's a difference in organization and management opinion.
    >  
    >
    > I was under the impression that kernel.org was the authoritative source
    > for the Linux kernel. What people are doing on the side was their own
    > project. *shrug* I could be wrong :-)[/ref]

    kernel.org is the official source of straight vanilla linux, but no
    distros use vanilla linux, they all have tons of patchs applied to it,
    some more than others. Even source code device drivers sometimes have
    trouble compiling with these heavily patch kernels. Each distro has too
    worry about what security patches their version of the kernel needs.
    It's not nearly as clean as the way the BSDs do it.
     
    >
    > No, but don't discount editing of the interview as a factor too in
    > accuracy.
    >
    > But on the other hand, Linus doesn't really give a flip about BSD. He
    > has his own project, and he does (justifiably) have a lot to be proud
    > of (at the risk of inflating his ego more). He doesn't sound like he's
    > really all that involved in distro flamewars or whatnot. So...it's
    > just another article for people to read :-)[/ref]

    --
    I sense much NT in you.
    NT leads to Bluescreen.
    Bluescreen leads to downtime.
    Downtime leads to suffering.
    NT is the path to the darkside.
    Powerful Unix is.

    Public Key: ftp://ftp.tallye.com/pub/lorenl_pubkey.asc
    Fingerprint: CEE1 AAE2 F66C 59B5 34CA C415 6D35 E847 0118 A3D2


    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFCNqpKbTXoRwEYo9IRAgX0AJ9O8fts1RL4bjpa7Qaq7B cp5Fr1uwCfcHOB
    vTz5FSqPxGj99E3HN8SU5HA=
    =/Aup
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    Loren Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Why not?

    > > I was under the impression that kernel.org was the authoritative source  
    >
    > kernel.org is the official source of straight vanilla linux, but no
    > distros use vanilla linux, they all have tons of patchs applied to it,
    > some more than others. Even source code device drivers sometimes have
    > trouble compiling with these heavily patch kernels. Each distro has too
    > worry about what security patches their version of the kernel needs.
    > It's not nearly as clean as the way the BSDs do it.[/ref]

    Slackware Linux uses a vanilla kernel, it's famed for it. Interestingly
    enough, you can use NetBSD pkgsrc on Slackware. It's probably the only
    distro that's clean and plain enough for it to work on...

    Mark

    --
    PGP: http://www.darklogik.org/pub/pgp/pgp.txt
    B776 43DC 8A5D EAF9 2126 9A67 A7DA 390F DEFF 9DD1

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (FreeBSD)

    iQIVAwUBQjatR6faOQ/e/53RAQqsdw/9HFHdfoNV7LhPcTsvUSbdXRXKokfeMc2Z
    /K6oP+VxkMB2JUpq1482Q+dbmsVSnVeVEZvQB6tH4OHZnEN2BUH bay73L/qrgCps
    afqbR2yvUfCAEzOR758amaAPS2qRkghBKUW4yYSxRjOFhdDVWf r16RDnPh3q4/gc
    5oaelsn7tIVf89OVSqhuoNCut48yxCGm3cL/6zzRVfQMAtYW/QieBVoF52sU1sI1
    FwAWMlVhFRy9RFKpEimR9UM7iCPN6geywSmkYXoCG7YosCKDda uBPff0Zc8nK3yH
    VvmGYwEyvwVVeMI0qW+niwF9mScO0Bme1vV0BV88lO+E/tw8AqjpiWCfOB5ZIbf0
    C1Y3yiRuzBOGMZ3+OXXAgTmeJ7abWrorWRvzf3RElBBo+/wZm0UYjQBgTaoBBSKP
    wQxyhOlH/XikGenX2RZ0/8K+awYxJzPSzsAhcmtDRQBUAeX1beCqcknpuw2q2oyV
    mJVXpkIbJ+Y+VNItzHo1i1YytOo53n1nAQAPiS8Ir6xROvph1c u3RHXzpIScHBqm
    VWsJIY6h8GHUKGk8zu6BtwXWrigWFJy079SKPh+qB77tLxlZq0 xa2EdGLN/6i8Wj
    u8okm7QVFlQ2t24GqQjzSo3wNZjRvTUbd3fkXnaHHQTGRHCrt9 yidFayxk5SHOEx
    eLSAznILUqU=
    =X6fY
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    markzero Guest

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139