On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Miller >> <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> This is a draft of the proposal I'm presenting at Flock, "An Architecture >>> for a More Agile Fedora" (<http://sched.co/19ugKGM>). >> (The more high-level comment.) >> >> This essentially explicitly gives up on the idea of "Fedora" or, >> implicitly, "Linux" as a "platform"^W/"deployment target"/"ecosystem" > > Quite the opposite, I would say. > > The BSDs show that you can maintain a highly integrated small core OS > with a tiny team. Android has shown it can be done on top of the Linux > kernel. The traditional Linux distros are comparatively flailing at it > -- throwing a ton more resources at it, badly coordinated. I mostly agree with this part. > If Fedora moves to a tightly integrated core, and does it in a way > that other distros follow, Linux could grow a small core that moves in > sync with the kernel and outpaces the competition. This proposal doesn't seem to make rings 0 or 1 particularly more integrated - just smaller; and it places a higher barrier to entry to adding useful functionality to the core. Want to add new a JSON library, HTTPS library with OCSP support, DNS resolver to the integrated core? Sorry, 30% of the stacks are on a 2-year lifecycle and can't use it now; other 30% have decided to ship unmodified upstream code and will not integrate any Fedora Core-specific patches. Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
