ktb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If these Debian patches are so great, why aren't they in the official > > kernel source? > > > > Because the patches didn't exist when 2.2 was released. That is the > nature of a patch. For the most part patches are created to fix > bugs that were unknown when the original was released.
OK, so these are official kernel.org patches then? Or something else? > > There's too many Unixes as it is, why have more than one Linux? > > > > Unix/Linux is a tool. Do you use only one tool when fixing a car? No, you > use the right tool for the right job. > kent Hm, not sure I buy this comparison. When fixing a car it's usually pretty clear whether you need an Allen key or a Philips screwdriver or whatever. The choice between Redhat and Debian, or even the choice between Solaris and GNU/Linux, is nowhere near this clear. I guess Unix is like a toolbox, except there are many different brands of tools and the various brands are only vaguely compatible with each other. If only it were possible, as you suggest, to pick and choose tools from various brands of toolboxes.. unfortunately, this doesn't work: you wouldn't normally take a Solaris box and add the Debian package manager to it, for example. My main problem with software, and especially free software, is that there's too *much* choice -- which suggests to me that none of options are really very good. Sort of like, say, Christianity: there are hundreds of different flavours, they all claim to be The Right One, and they all disagree with each other. (This argument doesn't necessarily hold in reverse: for example, there is only one Microsoft Windows, and yet public opinion suggests it's far from perfect.) With software, I'm hoping this is something that will improve over time. For example, if you type 'ls' at a Solaris box and a GNU/Linux box, you can expect to get the same result. Presumably this is because 'ls' has been around for 30 years, and has more or less stabilized. Some things have not stabilized yet: 'tar', for example, will give different results on Solaris and GNU/Linux. The Linux kernel is a tool that is good for one particular job: running a Unix workstation. (It is not so good for other jobs, like real-time heart monitoring, for example.) For all I know, the Debian kernel patches may be a A Good Thing (TM). The reason I bristled at the idea, in my previous post, is this: the Linux kernel strikes me as a Good Tool (TM), and I like to see Good Tools standardize, rather than fork into many competing flavours. I like to be able to compile my Linux kernel and my friend's Linux kernel, and get that same warm fuzzy compatibility feeling that I get from typing 'ls' on different kinds of Unix boxes. *That's* security. Forget about protecting your box from imaginary teenage hackers. The real threat is in the form of legions of benevolent programmers, wielding the power to make your computer forever incompatible with anybody else's. -chris
