Lately, it seems as if quite a few people are concerned about the status of Android as a Linux fork. There is quite a bit of talk about re-admitting the Android Linux kernel into the vanilla Linux kernel source.
Chris DiBona commented on many things in Android being irrelevant to the majority of Linux users, such as mobile phone chipsets. Is most of the kernel relevant to most people, or is it that we de-select the majority of device drivers when we do our kernel configs? I think that the latter is more the case, and quite often we de-select the vast majority of filesystems. For most people, NTFS, FAT, Ext2/3/4, swap, proc, and sysfs are really all that is required. A few may get into Reiser (what a killer filesystem), JFS, Squashfs, and UnionFS for particular machines. So, why is there a fuss over certain things making little difference to main stream Linux users, when most things in the Linux kernel are irrelevant to start with?
A lot of people are thinking that forks break unity. Sure, they probably do. Why is unity important to a community that is already fractured and splintered beyond belief? No one in the Linux community should really care about what is done in other distributions. If someone wants to fork the Linux kernel, so be it. I would prefer it. Competition to the vanilla kernel would likely do wonders, both for the fork and the vanilla kernel.
A multitude of options is also one of the factors in Linux security. A bug in one distribution or kernel fork does not mean a bug in all, and likewise for security exploits. Plus, diversity is one of Linux's main selling points.
The claims of Linux being more secure than other systems is rather bogus. Granted, security through obscurity isn't really a valid claim. Linux is rather widespread now. Also, I will give you that Linux is more secure than systems such as Microsoft's Windows series. I will not say that Linux is more secure than *BSD, *Solaris, or Darwin/OSX. I will not say that Linux is more secure than AIX or HPUX or Syllable, or Haiku, or Menuet, or any of the other systems out there. Security is not really a Linux selling point.
Stability is not really a Linux selling point either. The *BSD systems are far more bullet-proof. The main selling point for Linux is its variety. If we discourage forks, are we really offering much? If we discourage forks, there is little reason to choose one system over another. Any distribution can be made to function similarly to any other distribution. Kernel forks change the game quite a bit.
I advocate for the non-re-admission of Android into our stock kernel. I am willing to say that I hope everyone opens up their kernel source and dives in. LET'S FORK! Rewrite the kernel in a new programming language. Make kernels that are completely different but have the same syscalls, executable format, and drivers. Make kernels that do crazy things, just for the sake of experimentation. Let the days of adequacy fall behind us. We ought to demand precise functionality according to our own wants; this is open source software, and it's ours.
7 comments:
Yes, I agree, this is open source software and it's ours! Good encouraging post.
"Reiser (what a killer filesystem)"
If you intended that, it's extremely bad taste but also extremely funny :)
@Random, it was intentional.
I definitly agree with santosh and the author of this article. Linux is open source and yes it is ours. I say a big fat NO to Android.
I say a big fat YES to Android and any other system or group of developers who wish to use code that is out there, under the GPL (or other open license). It's free, it's open source, and while there are many reasons not to fork a "good" or "working" or "functional" project like the Linux kernel, there is no real reason not to. Fork away - it breeds progress!
--Sorivenul
> this is open source software and it's ours!
Yes, so why are we letting them fork it without any argument to keep it unified? Yes anyone is free to fork, but that also prevents improvements from reaching everyone and it fractures the development and user communities both. Forks should be the last course of action, for the benefit of all involved.
@lefty.crupps,
Have you even read the news lately, or followed Android development? Google tried to send their changes upstream and the Linux kernel maintainers, in their infinite wisdom, said no. It wasn't that they wanted to fork, it's that they were forced to. On top of that, in what world is a lack of competition a good thing? We need another open source kernel for Unix-like GNU systems to use, and that kernel in order to be competitive needs hardware support and compatibility with Linux software repositories. So, in the end, we all would benefit. Just learn to read the dang news. Oh, and, it may help if you know what the heck you're talking about.
Post a Comment