CGL and the Linux Foundation

[ibrahim.haddad@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Haddad Ibrahim-WPFT64)]

Hi Dan, All,

I don't really agree with the statement that Carriers run on RH.

RH claims that the top network equipment providers and telecom ISVs
incorporate Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Perhaps this is true, but not
necessarily in carrier-class context.  I am sure that TEMs, NEPs and
operators use RHEL for all sorts of front-office and data center
applications.  But we can list at least two dozen or more world-class
deployers who DO roll out their mission-critical voice and data apps on
CGL. 

We need to make a differentiation here on what runs where and read in
between the lines of RH statements/claims. 

What CGL really targets goes beyond the enterprise.  Red Hat is trying
to force-fit its enterprise-only offerings into a more
technically-oriented, industrial/embedded space, and ignore the more
difficult capabilities that form the core of CGL (and that Red Hat does
not offer).


Best regards
Ibrahim


-----Original Message-----
From: lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:lf_carrier-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Dan
Kohn
Sent: May 11, 2007 2:48 AM
To: Takashi Ikebe
Cc: Smarduch Mario-CMS063; lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: CGL and the Linux Foundation

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>


_______________________________________________
Lf_carrier mailing list
Lf_carrier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lf_carrier