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.'"

Comments

Monkey on your back.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?

Re:Monkey on your back.

[GrAfFiT]

It can be explained by SCO&co. as an implicit recognition of IP infringments.

Re:Monkey on your back.

[eno2001]

My thoughts exactly. It's a free kernel. Anyone is damned well welcome to rewrite it. Now, the technical issues are many. All this talk of "complete rewrite from the ground up" tend to be bad ideas. The reason is that the original code may have some very good bits to it that you may bollocks if you write a completely new implementation. What is more needed from a technical point of view is a re-architecture. You keep the good stuff, replace the bad stuff and you're done. Keep in mind that it will take a long time to do, but it may be worth it in the end.

Maybe...

[deafpluckin]

...this sounds like complete bs. For the sake of argument, instead of rewriting the kernel maybe they (ibm, redhat, novelle, whoever) should be working on developing material that would help them in any court cases against Microsoft, i.e. prior art and whatever else can help to combat any of those 27 patents.

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?

Re:That's a shame

[stratjakt]

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?

Re:Look at the source of the rumor

[A beautiful mind]

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.

Re:More FUD from O'Gara

[MrWa]

$240,000 - or atleast that is how much Armstrong Williams's integrity costs.

Re:That's a shame

[pqdave]

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.

Re:That's a shame

[Narishma]

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog00000000 69.html

I think this is the article you're referring to.

Re:That's a shame

[greatmazinger]

I agree with most of what you said. 10 years of testing is invaluable.

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.