Todd Zullinger wrote:
RHEL has customers -- customers who pay good money so that Red Hat can
pay developers to spend time backporting things to maintain ABI.
Which, if someone would pick an interface and stick to it, wouldn't have
to be done at all.
If you really need what RHEL provides, use RHEL or CentOS. Why should
Fedora duplicate that?
When something works right, everyone can use the same thing. But people
also need something RHEL and CentOS don't provide, which is current
application versions.
One "bright" idea was to let Fedora come up with a way to make it
better.
You mean - like actually define an interface and stick to it at
least through a kernel major revision number?
Right, and have davej and the kernel team spend all of their time
backporting?
There would be no need to backport if the kernel had an interface.
I'd rather have the kernel updated in a timely manner.
The place to argue for a stable interface is upstream. Hasn't this
been said over and over before?
I just appreciate the fact that on my Windows and Mac boxes I don't have
to get or rebuild every vendor-supplied driver after every system update
and I think Solaris works that way too. I'm not convinced it's
necessary. As an interesting aside - has anyone considered the
viability of building fedora's userland around the opensolaris kernel
like http://www.gnusolaris.org/gswiki is doing with ubuntu?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
