Re: Linux Core Consortium
Ian Murdock dijo [Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 04:42:29PM -0500]:
> > We would never have a common kernel with these vendors anyway - they
> > don't even have a common kernel with each other. My experience tells
> > me that would be a big barrier to certification of any kind.
> The LCC core will include a common kernel.
Ummm... Wait a second on this one. Do you think that Mandrake (I
wanted to make the example with RedHat or SuSE, but it seems they also
have not commited, and without them mostly any attempt to do something
this big will probably fail) would want to have a kernel with less,
slower or less complete hardware support? Because I know Debian does
not want a kernel with propietary firmware in it.
> > If there is merit to the common binaries, I think we would get more
> > mileage from it by supporting them as we do the LSB: with separate
> > packages on top of the Debian base system.
> That's certainly an option I've thought a lot about--the main
> question is, is this good enough to get the ISV support? It probably
> isn't to get the tier 1 ISVs (Oracle etc.), but it might be to
> get some of the smaller ISVs, and that's better than nothing at all.
Ok, so here is where exactly companies like yours come into play. I
don't think the LCC (as a commercial entity, with commercial interest
as you said) would be benefitted at all by supporting m68k or mips
(they would be more hindered than pushed by it - It does not surprise
me at all most Linux distributions pulled the plug on older or less
common architectures one by one). Progeny provides a Debian-based
distribution meant to be closer to the commercial world than
Debian. Why shouldn't Progeny provide for this set of needs? Of
course, if you are in the right mood, you can push your packages into
Debian as well, although they would not be base packages.
Gunnar Wolf - firstname.lastname@example.org - (+52-55)1451-2244 / 5554-9450
PGP key 1024D/8BB527AF 2001-10-23
Fingerprint: 0C79 D2D1 2C4E 9CE4 5973 F800 D80E F35A 8BB5 27AF