Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:26:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:26:04 -0500 Received: from 513.holly-springs.nc.us ([216.27.31.173]:60937 "EHLO 513.holly-springs.nc.us") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 07:25:56 -0500 Message-ID: <3A0A97D0.36C5913B@holly-springs.nc.us> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 07:25:52 -0500 From: Michael Rothwell X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Christoph Rohland CC: richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI) In-Reply-To: <80256992.002FE358.00@d06mta06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Christoph Rohland wrote: > If we really need a special enterprise tree lets do > it without module tricks. 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. 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. - 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/