Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A "Never Reboot" Service For Linux

Posted by kdawson on from the bits-don't-rot dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Ksplice, the company based on the MIT Ksplice project, is now offering its 'never reboot' service for Red Hat, Debian, and other Linux distros. You subscribe and get real-time kernel security updates that apply in-memory instead of rebooting. Last summer we discussed the free service for Ubuntu. Cool tech, but will people really pay $4 a month for this?"

4 of 321 comments (clear)

  1. How long till they.. by mystikkman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How long till they get sued by Microsoft?

    http://www.google.com/patents?id=cVyWAAAAEBAJ&dq=hotpatching

  2. Re:So instead of doing it right... by oldhack · · Score: 4, Interesting

    An interesting illustration of theory (how it should be) vs. practice (how it pans out).

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  3. Depends. by Hasai · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Cool tech, but will people really pay $4 a month for this?"

    Depends. If it's your laptop, I suspect the answer is no. If it's your server farm, I suspect the answer is yes.

    As an aside: Novell used to run contests to see who had the server with the greatest uptime since its last boot. Best one I ever saw was the Netware server that ran so long that everyone forgot where it was and it was accidentally walled-up inside a closet. Wouldn't it be great if the Linux community could run this type of contest? :)

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  4. Re:Yes, they are. by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Very true. However, the Linux kernel is GPL'ed.

    They provide binary patches which contain code that is a derivative work of the Linux kernel. What makes the binary ksplice patches derivative is they are converting patches that were created by other people under GPL terms, into a binary form suitable for use with ksplice.

    This means those binary patches must be distributed under the GPL, allowing recipients to share those binary patches.

    It also means they must make machine-readable source code available to all their patches, along with any changes they have made, and they must provide all compilation scripts, tools, and configuration files they use to build those patches. per the clause of the GPL that states:

    The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require,

    I can see a lot of people willing to pay $5 or so per month for access to the patches for each distinct OS their systems run.

    And some big enterprises paying a per-system fee to ensure everything is fully supported, and that they can always call them for help if something goes wrong with any system.....

    However, I don't see that it can be legal for them to force you to agree to pay a per-system fee to use a binary patch.

    That would seem to be in violation of your GPL rights.

    Given we've already established the binary patch files must be distributed under GPL.

    Any kernel-mode components of the patcher must also be under GPL, and also any user-mode components that are specific to the kernel design.

    The rest can be reverse-engineered.