Kernel branches

Kernel branches

Post by Marc Jorda » Thu, 07 Feb 2002 01:10:58



   Hi everyone, what do you think about the danger
of Linux kernel forking too much ? I mean, nowadays
there is mostly Alan Cox and Rik Van Riel on one
side and Andrea Arcangeli and Linus on other side (well
and a lot other, it is not to steal credit anyone).

   The main fork happened because of different VM
approaches, but I suppose that could have been for
whatever and what's more, even when there are no
so many as talented people out there, I am afraid
that the kernel becomes too much forked with
branches and subbranches. I know that the GPL
license does let this to happen, but do you think
it is good for Linux or for the image that Linux is
trying to give to the industry ? Wait for your
feedback about this :-)

 
 
 

Kernel branches

Post by Darre » Thu, 07 Feb 2002 04:04:35




> Hi everyone, what do you think about the danger of Linux kernel forking
> too much ? I mean, nowadays there is mostly Alan Cox and Rik Van Riel on
> one side and Andrea Arcangeli and Linus on other side (well and a lot
> other, it is not to steal credit anyone).

>    The main fork happened because of different VM
> approaches, but I suppose that could have been for whatever and what's
> more, even when there are no so many as talented people out there, I am
> afraid that the kernel becomes too much forked with branches and
> subbranches. I know that the GPL license does let this to happen, but do
> you think it is good for Linux or for the image that Linux is trying to
> give to the industry ? Wait for your feedback about this :-)

Historically, such forks don't stay forked for long .. the best solutions
have started as forks and been merged back together throughout the Linux
legacy.

 
 
 

Kernel branches

Post by Todd Relye » Thu, 07 Feb 2002 05:03:41



>    Hi everyone, what do you think about the danger
> of Linux kernel forking too much ? I mean, nowadays
> there is mostly Alan Cox and Rik Van Riel on one
> side and Andrea Arcangeli and Linus on other side (well
> and a lot other, it is not to steal credit anyone).

>    The main fork happened because of different VM
> approaches, but I suppose that could have been for
> whatever and what's more, even when there are no
> so many as talented people out there, I am afraid
> that the kernel becomes too much forked with
> branches and subbranches. I know that the GPL
> license does let this to happen, but do you think
> it is good for Linux or for the image that Linux is
> trying to give to the industry ? Wait for your
> feedback about this :-)

In this case I have to agree with Linus that multiple ketnel trees trying
out different technologies is a help to the overall health of linux.

Think of it as the natural selection process applied to software....the
best/fastest will surivive and live on...the others will die off.

Todd

 
 
 

Kernel branches

Post by Charlie Eber » Thu, 07 Feb 2002 05:16:21



>    Hi everyone, what do you think about the danger
> of Linux kernel forking too much ? I mean, nowadays
> there is mostly Alan Cox and Rik Van Riel on one
> side and Andrea Arcangeli and Linus on other side (well
> and a lot other, it is not to steal credit anyone).

>    The main fork happened because of different VM
> approaches, but I suppose that could have been for
> whatever and what's more, even when there are no
> so many as talented people out there, I am afraid
> that the kernel becomes too much forked with
> branches and subbranches. I know that the GPL
> license does let this to happen, but do you think
> it is good for Linux or for the image that Linux is
> trying to give to the industry ? Wait for your
> feedback about this :-)

To my knowledge, the Linux kernel hasn't FORKED.

But they did recently all adopt a new VM.

--
Charlie
http://24.94.230.113/Linux/intro.html
By 2005 Linux will be Dominate!