[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: SEUL: RFC: Base SEUL on Debian? (fwd)
> William T Wilson wrote:
> > > How is that going to work given that any one eliment of the core can be
> > > revised at a different time than the other elements? You going to hold
> > > a bug fix or security fix until the next core version?
Most of the programs in the core are completely independant programs. The
only time you would have a problem is when a major libc change occurs
breaking the core programs, and requiring a distribution. A simple patch
dependency is the best way to distribute these kinds of updates.
> But if I were a developer and worked on program "corefoo" and found a
> glitch in it after core 1.3 was out, how could I version corefoo? I'm
> assuming you're saying that programs in core are numbered with core i.e.
> "corefoo 1.3" in this case.
The core would be one distribution. core.1.3.rpm. If a patch is sent, the
patch is core.1.3.1.rpm.
> > > So you're not talking about the core binaries needed for a base system?
> > No, we are. However, core binaries aren't much different from
> > distribution to distribution. It's the application packages that are
> > different.
Bingo. Someone else figured this out.
> off and put their own together.
> Granted, I don't want to get rediculous about it, there are a lot of
> bare essentials that you just have to have for a working system, but it
> sounds to me like you are talking about more than just the baseline
> utilities needed for it to boot and have a filesystem. Or am I wrong
> here? Because I'm sure that there is already a universal absolute
> minimum set that everyone uses, there has to be for it to work.
Actually the core system would include many things that are just conviences.
A minimal kernel with a complete filesystem does fit on a single 1.44 M
floppy. You can do squat with it, but you can find it at sunsite in the
> > If RH manages to patent the idea for this core, I'll be first in line to
> > take out patents on going to the store and going to bed at night.
> I was really just using RH as an example since, from what I've been
> reading, they seemed to be against getting involved.
> So let's say RH doesn't but M$ patents the idea (algorythm) of a unified
> Linux core structure. Puts the kibosh on linux becoming universal
> enough for vendors to port to doesn't it?
If MS wanted to do that it would have a hell of a legal battle to lose
against ATT the people who created the orginal core unix system and the
ones who can claim prior art.
MS would also have to get permission from GNU to distribute there utilities
in a distribution against the GPL.
> Actually maybe it falls more under a copywrite than a patent. Who
> knows, just a thought.
Anyone who wants to copyright it would face the same problem.