Slashdot Mirror
OSDL Denies Rewriting Kernel
yootje writes "Although there were rumours saying that OSDL writes a version of the Linux kernel that doesn't infringe patents (an argument that was used by Microsoft), OSDL denies this: 'OSDL officials have said that the report was not accurate, and that while Beaverton is putting $1.2m into economic development around open source software, this is not connected to rewriting the Linux kernel.'"
"Although there were rumours saying that OSDL writes a version of the Linux kernel that doesn't infringe patents (an argument that was used by Microsoft), OSDL denies this: "OSDL officials have said that the report was not accurate, and that while Beaverton is putting $1.2m into economic development around open source software this is not connected to rewriting the Linux kernel.""
OK. So why exactly is rewriting the kernel a problem?
In other news, FIPFS (Fictitious Initiative for Patent-Free Software) has incredible difficulty writing an operating system due to all practical functionality of operating systems being patented...
Then, if there's a patent that they think MS might try to stick them with, re-write/change only that part of the kernel that's affected.
Am I the only one that thinks an entire re-write for operating system technologies that have been around long before MS is a little silly?There are large sections of code that havent been touched since 1.x releases. Linux frankly runs for shit on anything other than x86, despite all the claims of all the different systems it runs on. Too much PC specific cruft.
"Rewrite", to a programmer, doesn't mean to throw everything out and start from scratch, either. It means rethink some the design. Reevaluate why feature X was done the way it was, and if that's stillt he best way to do it. Make sure it's still relevant for modern hardware, and make sure it will still be relevant for tomorrows hardware.
MSFT is doing this with Longhorn. The hardware evolves, why shouldn't the software that runs on it?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Ah, this explains. Her latest reports i can remember of were heavily criticised by Groklaw and with that she lost all credibility. She did such poor job on even lieing that it was painful even to read.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
$240,000 - or atleast that is how much Armstrong Williams's integrity costs.
really? got any numbers to support that, oh great fudmeister?
I dont' have any numbers to support my rebuttal either, but I do have 4 non intel systems ( 2 ppc and 2 ultrasparc ) running perceptably faster than equivalently clocked intel machines
Sitting Walrus Blog
Because there are situations where X86 is irrelevant, but Linux is a top OS contender. In these cases, someone has (probably correctly) decided that resources are better spent customizing Linux to run on their hardware than it would be to start from scratch.
Linux frankly runs for shit on anything other than x86, despite all the claims of all the different systems it runs on. Too much PC specific cruft.
Examples, please! I find this kind of FUD exactly on the same par as SCO's bullshit! Aside from the memory management stuff (which, I admit, I have not examined in much detail) I do not see lotsa x86 specific stuff. I have worked on scaled-down versions of Linux kernel on other architectures besides x86 (my forte is embedded code) and I take direct exception to this.
Defend yourself with facts, sir!
I think this is the article you're referring to.
Mada mada dane.
On the other hand, I think the developement of HURD, lethargic though it may be is a good thing.
And the fact that 99% of the sw that I write will run on Linux or any BSD.
I like options.
But a rewrite of the kernel doesn't mean that the old kernel will be junked. It could be forked and we all could have both kernels to run on. :) Maybe I'm just being naive though.