Re: Desktop Kernel Stuff

[Sander Vesik <sander vesik sun com>]

Alan Cox wrote:
> > Commerical UNIX's now have to worry about being compatible with Linux,
> > rather than the other way around.  And most facilities we would want
> > are usefull for other things, in any case.
> >
> > So I no longer believe that getting kernel changes for the desktop
> > is a futile exercise anymore, the way it was a few years ago.
>
>
> It isnt the kernel changes that are the big problem. Linux and *BSD will
> adopt sane changes and even work together on them sometimes. I'm sure
> the Sun guys are taking notes too.
>
> The problem is legacy infrastructure - NFS has no EA's for example or
> file notifications

on the compatibility / legacy side its not so much things like NFS but 
things like 'hey, what do you mean my glibc is 3 years old, it worlks just 
fine'. Seriously - there is no reason to assume people will do base system 
upgardes on a different cycle than the usual 3-4 year PC upgrade cycle. 
This is going to increasingly affect what is easily deplyoable by vendors 
and supportabel by open source projects as a minimum system level.

also, its odd seeing people want EA when gnome doesn't really even do 
anything useful (or cope with) just plain old ACL-s.

--
	Sander

OpenOffice.org - conquering the world 14000 PC-s at a time