CGL and the Linux Foundation

[dan@xxxxxxxxxxx (Dan Kohn)]

On May 10, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Takashi Ikebe wrote:

> I agree that.
> Basically CGL is the Linux that applicable on carrier equipment.  
> This means the CGL is different from general purpose Linux.
> Network equipment typically requires high availability, real time  
> capability (response time), serviceability than scalability and  
> total throughput.
> I think general purpose computing prefer latter.
> Therefore I think the acceptance of community is hard because of  
> carrier specific functionality. and that's why CGL exists.

Thank you for your comments.  I agree that this is the premise that  
has largely driven CGL in the past.

What is confusing to me is that a very large amount of carrier  
equipment (if not the majority) runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.   
Red Hat explicitly has a policy against having "carrier Red Hat",  
"secure Red Hat", etc.

Please note that the LF is not partial to any one distribution.   
Further, I agree that the options compiled into Linux on a mobile  
phone will be very different from those used for compiling Linux used  
on a mobile base station.  But one of the great strength of Linux, I  
would argue, is that all implementations derive directly from the  
same mainline.  When CGL requires (in order to be compliant with P1  
requirements) the use of patches that have been explicitly rejected  
by the relevant kernel subsystem maintainers, it comes very close to  
promoting a fork.  Of course, since Linux is GPLed, any organization  
can fork it at any time.  But no one has wanted to do so because of  
the enormous cost of maintaining such a fork.

I would appreciate if you could provide some specific examples  
(perhaps from the CGL 4.0 spec) of NTT requirements whose  
implementations were explicitly rejected by the kernel community.  I  
greatly appreciate NTT's involvement with CGL and the LF.  Further, I  
know that the kernel community values the input of end users like NTT  
in specifying where the Linux kernel is not adequate today.

I am suggesting, however, a change in focus in CGL toward specifying  
requirements (what and why) and away from specifying  
implementations.  Further, I believe it is in the entire Linux  
community's interest to avoid a fork.

            - dan
-- 
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
COO, The Linux Foundation <http://www.linux-foundation.org>
<http://www.dankohn.com/>  <tel:+1-415-233-1000>