Re: The Kernel

[Kai Wetzel <k.wetzel@welfen-netz.com>]

(When replying to the list PLEASE don't Cc me)

William T Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Paul Anderson wrote:
> 
> > What does it take to boot Linux with only 2Megs of diskspace?  There you
> > have your core.  The ABSOLUTE MINIMUM essentials.  vmlinuz, LILO,

This comes closer to what has been called "base" in some respect,
even though even base does contain 5 floppies currently AFAIK.

The "core" we've been talking about is IMHO a list
of requirements for a system which wants to claim
compliance with it, e.g. Does it have grep, perl,
gettext installed, do they sit where the FHS says,
...  Any distribution may decide to stay away from
this standard, or offer the option core/less then core.
(Then the individual system isn't core compliant anymore.)

I don't think the kernel is the most important thing to
worry about.  I'd even say this is something we could
approach when we're actually facing the challenge :O)
We could also change the policy if it's really not
going to work.
 
> This is not useful either.  It makes the core irrelevant.  Instead of
> saying "We include whatever we want and call it core" we say "The core
> means that you have a linux system of some sort," which is almost the same
> thing, and not very useful.  The core "Versions" then become equivalent to
> glibc and kernel versions, and we have that already.
> 
> Is not the purpose of the core to have a system which developers and users
> alike can call a standard?  I would think that would imply some degree of
> standardization...

I agree.

kai