Re: The Kernel

[Rick Jones <rickya@siservices.net>]

George Bonser wrote:
> 
> No, I was not.  Once you add a new kernel, you are no longer SEUL. There
> is no longer a guarantee that everything compiled agains the original
> kernel will work.  It is one of the reasons that people are so afraid to
> produce anything for Linux.  The user keeps dicking with the OS.

That doesn't make a bit of sense.  I can understand not wanting any
pathes to the main part of the kernel for the core.  That would alter
the functionality of things and then, potentially, cause problems for
vendors.  That is why there needs to be a stripped kernel in core, so
the bare essentials are standardized across the board.

Core is *not* SEUL.  At least acording to what has been discussed
concerning a "standard core" is not SEUL.  SEUL builds on top of this
core just like anybody else.  That means different kernels can be placed
in *base* (the layer above core) because that is where the dist begins.

You aren't going to tell me that if a kernel with, ipmasq compiled in,
is in base that it will screw up vendors and therefore can't be there. 
Kernel binaries with different options compiled in can and should be in
base.

> I do not see IBM releasing their source, or Microsoft, or anyone else yet
> there are plenty of apps. Why?  Because they have a clear API for the
> programmer to work with.  You start recompiling the kernel and your API
> starts moving around on you.

I beg to differ on that point.  There is a difference between the off
the shelf version and the OEM version.  There are more than one of both
versions as well.  Not all programs work with all versions of
Windoze95.  They *claim* to have a steady API but it's not a fact at
this point.

> My blood pressure just went up about 20 points :) If we are going to be a
> stable trouble-free platform, we can not be fluid.  We can produce MODULES
> but not kernels except as new versions of SEUL.

A module is just inserted into the kernel dynamically.  The same as
Windoze .dll files.  So reguardless of it being a module or compiled in
it will interact the same way with the vendors software.

> We are going to have to be better tested than any distribution of Linux.
> Are we prepared for that?  Without SERIOUS testing we can not be assued of
> a trouble-free install for a wide array of hardware and skill levels.  I
> do NOT want people doing point-and-click kernel builds (though that is
> easy with debian's make-kpkg kernel_image)

That is my point.  The *core* is not this dist.  It is in that it will
be a part of it, but the point of the core, as Omega has explained it,
is to be a standard starting point for all distributions to build on.

If you try to sell the core as a standard and tell other dists that they
can't include other pre-compiled kernels in their dist, they aren't
going to do it.  That is the whole reason why there are multiple dist's
out there to begin with.  As Omega said earlier, there is a name for it
now, the "Linux core" not the SEUL core, although the Linux core is
included in SEUL, SEUL is *not* in the Linux core.  The SEUL core, if
you will, starts at *base* not the Linux core.

There are actually 2 projects going on here.  The Linux core proposal
and the SEUL distribution.  They have to remain seperate concepts.

Patches to the kernel are a different matter.  But a beneficial patch
should be concidered for inclusion into the Linux core as well as SEUL
base.