Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Kernel to Fork?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the remember-when-the-kernel-spooned dept.

Ninjy writes "Techworld has a story up about the possibility of the 2.7 kernel forking to accomodate large patch sets. Will this actually happen, and will the community back such a decision? "

9 of 578 comments (clear)

  1. I'd Like to Run Linux -- Just No Time by mfh · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Accomodating large patch sets seems to be a natural progression for Linux. Personally, as a person stuck with XP because I just don't have time to know everything about Linux to install it and keep it running, I would like to see an open source solution for Linux that is completely plug and play. To me, the amount of time required to know Linux is the only thing keeping me away. I imagine a future where I can download a copy of Linux and it would install on my system without any configuration and every option would be through an option menu, like our Slashdot prefs. If this could be a reality today, I would drop XP in a heartbeat.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:I'd Like to Run Linux -- Just No Time by Cheeze · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      you should try out knoppix. Let's you run from a cd, and will detect almost all normal hardware.

      --
      Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
    2. Re:I'd Like to Run Linux -- Just No Time by aldoman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Don't get too happy. A lot of problems are solved, but there is a HUGE problem in the form of installing software.

      Currently they are 4 'methods':

      Compile from source
      RPM/DEB
      apt-get/yum
      Custom installer

      Compile from source is not going to work. Takes too long, requires too much knowledge, requires lots of source already on the system.

      RPM/Deb is useless for anything but the most simple tasks, because of dependancy hell.

      apt-get/yum is good, infact it's the closest we have at the moment. However, it's has 3 huge downsides:
      1) it requires a central server that can go down, hacked, go offline due to financial issues, whatever.
      2) it requires the central server organization to test and ensure the packages work, which really should be the packagers job. This results in it being slow, and can take weeks before new versions of software come onto the apt server.
      3) Some packages due to their legal status cannot be hosted. Also, for commercial software it would require each company to host their own apt server as most distro's would not want to bear the costs of distrubuting their software.

      --
      IntechHosting - Free domain, 2GB, PHP, £4.95/$8.95
  2. Re:From the article... by FooBarWidget · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Until you see a game failing to load in XP SP 2, no matter what you try.

  3. Re:From the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Firstly, which game?

    Secondly, have you tried WINE?

  4. Re:From the article... by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Freedom Force.

  5. Re:From the article... by Zeal0t · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    not like anyone with common sense would install sp2...

  6. Dumbing Down Apps by TheShrike · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Please, developers, don't dumb Linux apps/distros down so much that it looks and feels like Windows.

    Too late. For example, Where have all my preferences gone?.

    Or check out the open dialog used for importing bookmarks into the latest Mozilla.

    Gnome2 is the epitome of this question, not necessarily in look/feel, but in abstracting things away, burying preferences in themes, oversimplifying, and removing options.

    --

    --
    If R is the set of all sets which don't contain themselves, does R contain itself?
  7. its a good thing by sakura+the+mc · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    that i use freebsd