Slashdot Mirror
The 2.5 Kernel Tree And Alan Cox
Motor writes "It seems that (as everyone suspected), the 2.5 Linux kernel tree is close to opening. However, contrary to expectations, 2.4 will not be maintained by Alan Cox, but will instead be handled by Marcelo Tosatti. Thanks to Alan for all his hard work on 2.0 and 2.2."
I hope this turns out well. Alan has been a great contributor to a worthy cause.
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
The word "and" should not be capitalized when used in a title. Please change accordingly.
Linux 2.4, maintenance and succession
Posted 2 Nov 2001 by alan
People will have been wondering about the 2.4 stable kernel progression. Various bizarre rumours in Byte seem to have generated a lot of discussion and rumour. Now that the people concerned are all agreed its time to put the entire roadmap out and make it clear.
Linus will be releasing a 2.4.14 and probably a 2.4.15 finishing off the VM stability work and other rough corners. At that point the 2.5 kernel tree will be opened. There is a lot stuff queued for 2.5. It isn't going to be possible or sensible to throw it all into 2.5.0. One of the tasks is to put changes together in the right order.
Marcelo Tosatti will be the head maintainer over the 2.4 stable kernel tree. This is not the giant change it may seem from the outside. The stable kernel management was and is a group effort. Marcelo and many others have been active in 2.2 and 2.4 stabilisation work. I'll be helping Marcelo with advice when he asks it, and working on feeding him the 2.4 relevant bits of the -ac tree.
I will not be dissappearing from the scene, although I might be a little less visible at times. There are various kernel projects I will be working on as well as spending more time concentrating on Red Hat customer related needs. I'm hopeful that spending more time closer to customers will help provide more insight into where 2.5 needs to be going.
David Weinehall did a great job on 2.0.39 when he took over 2.0 from me.I'm very confident that Marcelo will do a great job on 2.4.
Alan
Damn, my speling (and gramme^Har) sucks.
The most annoying thing about the GPL is the way people (mostly Americans) can't bring themselves
to admitting that it's a half-baked socialist ideal, because they don't even understand socialism,
let alone dare claim support for it. Nay, even communist, because RMS believes all software *must
* have this licence.
The GPL argument seems to be based on, "software has no monetary value because it can be easily co
pied". If software were an expression of an idea that only existed on non-replicable medium, it wo
uld have such value, right? Excellent. All I have to do then is to make a Star Trek Replicator (I'
m sure it will happen eventually) and, by RMS, _everything_ replicable will lose all financial val
ue.
The placement of software on a bit of media is no different than Coca Cola saying, "hey, this woul
d be a cool mix of sugar and goo!" and mixing the ingredients together into a can. Or a carpenter
saying "hm, I know how to make a more sturdy chair" and building it with his tools. Each is the se
quence idea -> implementation of idea.
I can't possibly fathom why ideas should be free. (that is to say, the mere product of man's mind)
but the expression of those ideas (say in a chair, the product of man's mind and hands) may not.
Worse, why campaign for ideas to be free, but let those who restrict their ideas (the majority of
companies) use their ideas for further restriction?
Trying to figure out an answer:
1. Expression takes more effort? No it doesn't. Thinking the ideas often takes more effort than im
plementing them, e.g. developing a new drug compared to mixing the ingredients.
2. Research into new ideas costs no money? Ha. This might explain why GNU / Linux is so uninnovati
ve, and its main role is to play catchup. Yes, Linux has some wonderful efficiences, say in the in
terrupt processing code. But there are never any *big new ideas*. Research takes much money and ti
me, the gathering of data, the use of equipment, and the use of people who have to eat and be hous
ed, etc.
3. Ideas can be copied without cost. No, someone pays for the communications medium. Usually Big B
ad Corporations, unless you wish to free the implementation of ideas too. _Cheaply_, maybe. You te
ll a man stuck in the middle of Africa, "Dammit! Just download the source! It's Free!" and he may
ask you for (food..) education in the English language, a computer and an Internet connection. Fre
e software may lower the barrier to enlightenment, but only for rich Westerners with lots of time
on their hands to learn.
Consistency please!
That's In other words you *stinking* retard.