Re: [ANNOUNCE] Generalised Kernel Hooks Interface (GKHI)

[Michael Rothwell]

Christoph Rohland wrote:
> If we really need a special enterprise tree lets do
> it without module tricks.

Why? I think the IBM GKHI code would be of tremendous value. It would
make the kernel much more flexible, and for users, much more friendly.
No more patch-and-recompile to add a filesystem or whatever. There's no
reason to hamstring their efforts because of the possibility of binary
modules. The GPL allows that, right? So any developer of binary-only
extensions using the GKHI would not be breaking the license agreement, I
don't think. There's lots of binary modules right now -- VMWare, Aureal
sound card drivers, etc.

I understand and agree with your desire for full source for everything,
but I disagree that we should artificially limit people's ability to use
Linux to solve their problems.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/