Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 06:25:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 06:25:01 -0500 Received: from smtpde02.sap-ag.de ([194.39.131.53]:46225 "EHLO smtpde02.sap-ag.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 06:24:44 -0500 From: Christoph Rohland To: richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com Cc: Michael Rothwell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI) In-Reply-To: <80256992.002FE358.00@d06mta06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Organisation: SAP LinuxLab Date: 09 Nov 2000 12:24:32 +0100 In-Reply-To: richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com's message of "Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:43:09 +0000" Message-ID: Lines: 36 User-Agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Bryce Canyon) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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/