Re: The Kernel

[William T Wilson <fluffy@dunadan.com>]

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998, George Bonser wrote:

> > Red Hat tried to monkey with their kernel in RH5 and broke it, now it
>
> That is not really true.  They went to libc6 without through testing and

No, it is.  They fooled with the sound driver and forgot that people might
want to compile their own kernels occasionally.

It had nothing to do with libc6, which breaks its own share of things
(but not the kernel, which as long as your gcc works is independent of
libraries).

> My opinion is that there are several things in those patches that are
> useful and the ones I suggest are stable and do not break anything (so

Hm.  There must be a VERY good reason for this.  If the patches are so
good, why are they not in the kernel in the first place?

> > Besides, the kernel will be part of the core, I believe; hate to play
> 
> A binary kernel.

No, a binary kernel and source too.  Developers must count on kernel
headers, at the very least, to make their programs worthwhile.  The kernel
source isn't used as often, but, I hate to make the kernel dependent on
any sort of nonstandard hacking.