Messages in this thread |  | | From | Christoph Rohland <> | Subject | Re: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI) | Date | 09 Nov 2000 12:24:32 +0100 |
| |
Hi Richard,
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, richardj moore wrote: > Let be clear about one thing: the GKHI make no statement about > enabling proprietary extensions and that's a common > misconception. GKHI is intended to make optional facilities easier > to co-install and change. We designed it for DProbes, and when > modularised will remain a GPL opensource offering.
Yes, I understand that.
> The only motivation for providing GKHI is to make the kernel more > acceptable to the enterprise customer, but allowing, for example, > RAS capabilities to be brough in easily and dynmaically. This type > of customer will not readily succome to on-the-fly kernel rebuilds > to diagnose problems that occur only in complex production > environments.
I know this problem pretty well.
> If anything opens the door to proprietary extensions it's the > loadable kernel modules capability or perhaps the loose wording of > the GPL which doesn't catch loadable kernel modules, or > whatever... Bottom line GKHI really has no bearing on this.
Yes, and that's why I am opposing here: Technically you are right, but proposing that enterprise Linux should go this way is inviting binary only modules due to the lax handling of modules.
Please keep in mind: I did not react to your announcement but to the proposal that the companies should jump on it to do a special enterprise Linux. If we really need a special enterprise tree lets do it without module tricks.
Greetings Christoph - 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/
|  |