Re: Linux stifles innovation...

[Matt D. Robinson]

"Mike A. Harris" wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2001, Matt D. Robinson wrote:
> 
> >The day the Linux kernel splinters into multiple, distinct efforts is the
> >day I'll believe the kernel is fully into progress over "preference".  Right
> >now, Alan accepts what he thinks should go into stable kernels, and Linus
> >accepts what he thinks should go into future kernels.  I'm not saying they
> >aren't doing the right things, or that the system doesn't work, but it's
> >hardly what I would call a progressive movement.  It's simply long,
> >drawn-out evolution at best.
> >
> >I'm surprised the major vendors haven't created their own consortium
> >by now to create a Linux kernel they think is best suited for their own
> >hardware.  But then again, they probably still spend all their time worrying
> >about whether their efforts will be "accepted" into the mainstream Linux
> >kernel.  Now _that's_ what I consider to be stifling innovation and
> >progression.
> >
> >Kind of off-topic, but whatever ...
> 
> Basically it boils down to this.. By continuing this thread here,
> I'm preaching to the choir, and I'd rather not waste my time on
> those with no clue of the open source movement.  The other
> alterative is to stick up for open source, and debate you until
> I'm blue in the face - and you wont change your mind anyways,
> and considering you're the minority here.. who cares?
> 
> Thread == dead.

Mike, next time, read someone's post before responding, okay?
If you think I don't care about open source, perhaps you weren't
paying enough attention.  I'd like to see open source evolve even
faster than it does now.  If you somehow missed that, then go back
and read what I wrote again.  And I'm sure you can find much
more positive ways to defend open source than responding in the
way you just did -- your tone projects the kind of animosity that
causes these closed vs. open source debates in the first place.

My feeling is we should splinter the kernel development for
different purposes (enterprise, UP, security, etc.).  I'm sure
it isn't a popular view, but I feel it would allow faster progression
of kernel functionality and features in the long run.  And that's
simply a different view than you have.  It's certainly not one
that is against the open source movement (as you've implied).

--Matt (http://oss.sgi.com/projects/lkcd)