Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:30:23 +0100 | From | Lars Marowsky-Bree <> | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI) |
| |
On 2000-11-09T07:25:52, Michael Rothwell <rothwell@holly-springs.nc.us> said:
> Why? I think the IBM GKHI code would be of tremendous value. It would > make the kernel much more flexible, and for users, much more friendly. > No more patch-and-recompile to add a filesystem or whatever. There's no > reason to hamstring their efforts because of the possibility of binary > modules. The GPL allows that, right? So any developer of binary-only > extensions using the GKHI would not be breaking the license agreement, I > don't think. There's lots of binary modules right now -- VMWare, Aureal > sound card drivers, etc.
And we already refuse to support those kernels - your point being?
Making this "commonplace" is a nightmare. Go away with that.
> I understand and agree with your desire for full source for everything, > but I disagree that we should artificially limit people's ability to use > Linux to solve their problems.
I want their solving of their problems not to create problems for me though.
Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@suse.de> Development HA
-- Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |