Don't know? Maybe it would never be done. Maybe some of the devs would leave v2 and go for the v3 fork? As you said, it isn't a small project so how many devs can they lose to a v3 fork and still maintain v2?
I just think these are all important questions that should be considered.
Can someone simply look at any changes the v2 code implements and use that as *inspiration* to implement those changes in v3? Of course, not direct copying since that brings up other issues.
I am mostly just messing around. I wish the HURD would pick up some steam and a hell of a lot of features or maybe solaris?????
Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230
Linux users owe Microsoft
I just picked this up on slashdot. I haven't read it yet, just quickly skimmed it and it looks like it's worth a look. It's a transcript of a speach RMS just did:
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3 ... transcript
Enjoy (or not)
Tina
http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3 ... transcript
Enjoy (or not)
Tina
-
DeanLinkous
- Posts: 1570
- Joined: 2006-06-04 15:28
v3 and kernel forking (grin)
As long as v3 doesn't null, or void v2 there shouldn't be a problem.
The kernel people all keep their own branches any way. And there isn't much to stop a company providing specialised modules. So it has been a kind of defactoed fork of soughts for along time.
I really doubt if the developers would want the syncing problems involved as well. And it is common in kernel development for 'change' to be treated with a lot of suspicion/scrutiny.
And it seems the encryption thing only involves sw that includes a key to install or exec ... so that wouldn't really involve much. So Linux isn't going to suffer any great acceptance or deployment problems as a result.
The problem of tracking down all the contributors to get approval for a licence change is also a big task.
I don't think it is really an issue of Linux not going with v3 ... just that, like all things kernel related ... they will wait and see how it works first. And probably suggest it should be submitted as a module first (grin)
jm
The kernel people all keep their own branches any way. And there isn't much to stop a company providing specialised modules. So it has been a kind of defactoed fork of soughts for along time.
I really doubt if the developers would want the syncing problems involved as well. And it is common in kernel development for 'change' to be treated with a lot of suspicion/scrutiny.
And it seems the encryption thing only involves sw that includes a key to install or exec ... so that wouldn't really involve much. So Linux isn't going to suffer any great acceptance or deployment problems as a result.
The problem of tracking down all the contributors to get approval for a licence change is also a big task.
I don't think it is really an issue of Linux not going with v3 ... just that, like all things kernel related ... they will wait and see how it works first. And probably suggest it should be submitted as a module first (grin)
jm
Novell now has reason to regret their pact with Microsoft...
The Microsoft-Novell Pact: Fish or 'Foul' Posturing
At the Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) conference the other day in Seattle, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer picked up the biggest, fattest, slitheriest worm out of that can of worms he opened up when he cut that deal with Novell and got Novell to squirming and wishing he hadn't.
During a Q&A Ballmer was asked if Microsoft was selling out by collaborating with a Linux distributor.
In answering he came out and said Linux "uses our patented intellectual property..."
http://linux.sys-con.com/read/308332.htm
The Microsoft-Novell Pact: Fish or 'Foul' Posturing
At the Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) conference the other day in Seattle, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer picked up the biggest, fattest, slitheriest worm out of that can of worms he opened up when he cut that deal with Novell and got Novell to squirming and wishing he hadn't.
During a Q&A Ballmer was asked if Microsoft was selling out by collaborating with a Linux distributor.
In answering he came out and said Linux "uses our patented intellectual property..."
http://linux.sys-con.com/read/308332.htm
Indeed!thamarok wrote:wtf?
So in sumary: Hovsepian does not agree with Ballmer. Ballmer does not agree with Hovsepian. Nor can they agree about exactly what they are (respectfully of course) disagreeing over. And on the sideline stands Eben Moglen and he is disagreeeing with both. And he tells Stallman what his take is on the thing and Stallman completly misinterpret it and blurt out some statements in Tokyo which some journalists misinterpret. The whole mess then lead to articles like the above and slashdot articles like this. So yeah... wtf??
Damn... some times I really have to check that it's actually a true story and not the manuscript of an episode of "Fawlty Towers" or something...
Tina
-
thamarok
Lavene wrote:
>>
Damn... some times I really have to check that it's actually a true story and not the manuscript of an episode of "Fawlty Towers" or something...
>>
Ahhh yes, but, Basil will always make much more sense than the bouncing monkey ever will. I think the monkey is a bit more dangerous when left unsupervised though.
jm
>>
Damn... some times I really have to check that it's actually a true story and not the manuscript of an episode of "Fawlty Towers" or something...
>>
Ahhh yes, but, Basil will always make much more sense than the bouncing monkey ever will. I think the monkey is a bit more dangerous when left unsupervised though.
jm
It seems to me that Linux depends upon the Internet. Linux grew up on the Internet and it propagates over the Internet. None of the blathering about patents and licences means much as long as users can download from wherever. However, if the powers that be sieze controll of the Internet, Linux could be scuppered.
Every one would be scuppered ... but even in scuppered countries, Linux thrives.
So, it won't happen ...
As for a fork ... its' already been defacto forked for years ... but those forks all rotate around 'main line' ... and that will continue as is.
A forking as such ... it just isn't practicle for an OS like Linux. An OS is very different to a use space app. To much duplication, to many cross user space deployment problems. It would limit app usability. Basically all the main companies realise this and so chose to work together instead. Though, with a somewhat dynamic interaction (grin) too.
jm
So, it won't happen ...
As for a fork ... its' already been defacto forked for years ... but those forks all rotate around 'main line' ... and that will continue as is.
A forking as such ... it just isn't practicle for an OS like Linux. An OS is very different to a use space app. To much duplication, to many cross user space deployment problems. It would limit app usability. Basically all the main companies realise this and so chose to work together instead. Though, with a somewhat dynamic interaction (grin) too.
jm