On 2000-11-09T07:25:52,
Michael Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
And we already refuse to support those kernels - your point being?
Making this "commonplace" is a nightmare. Go away with that.
> 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.
I want their solving of their problems not to create problems for me though.
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Development HA
--
Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl
-
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/
