Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:43:48 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:43:38 -0500 Received: from 513.holly-springs.nc.us ([216.27.31.173]:11530 "EHLO 513.holly-springs.nc.us") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 9 Nov 2000 08:43:24 -0500 Message-ID: <3A0AA9F2.9F76DF1@holly-springs.nc.us> Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 08:43:14 -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: Alan Cox CC: Lars Marowsky-Bree , Christoph Rohland , richardj_moore@uk.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI) In-Reply-To: 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 Alan Cox wrote: > RTLinux is hardly a fork. UcLinux is a fork, it has its own mailing list, web > site and everything. Post 2.4 I'm still very interested in spending time merging > the 2.4 uc and the main tree. I think it can be done and they are doing it in > a way that leads logically to this. And how would a hypothetical Advanced Linux Kernel Project be different? Set aside the GKHI and the issue of binary-only hook modules; how would an "enterprise" fork be any different than RT or UC? It'll go off, change and add some things, and then perhaps be merged back in later. In the meantime, developers who want to add "enterpriseness" to Linux will have an outlet and won't have to simply gripe on this list anymore. And users who want an "enterprise" kernel can get one. -M - 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/