Kernel Modules in Fedora -x

Les Mikesell lesmikesell at
Fri Aug 3 19:37:13 UTC 2007

Todd Zullinger wrote:

> RHEL has customers -- customers who pay good money so that Red Hat can
> pay developers to spend time backporting things to maintain ABI.

Which, if someone would pick an interface and stick to it, wouldn't have 
to be done at all.

> If you really need what RHEL provides, use RHEL or CentOS.  Why should
> Fedora duplicate that?

When something works right, everyone can use the same thing.  But people 
also need something RHEL and CentOS don't provide, which is current 
application versions.

>>> One "bright" idea was to let Fedora come up with a way to make it
>>> better.
>> You mean - like actually define an interface and stick to it at
>> least through a kernel major revision number?
> Right, and have davej and the kernel team spend all of their time
> backporting? 

There would be no need to backport if the kernel had an interface.

> I'd rather have the kernel updated in a timely manner.
> The place to argue for a stable interface is upstream.  Hasn't this
> been said over and over before?

I just appreciate the fact that on my Windows and Mac boxes I don't have 
to get or rebuild every vendor-supplied driver after every system update 
and I think Solaris works that way too.  I'm not convinced it's 
necessary.  As an interesting aside - has anyone considered the 
viability of building fedora's userland around the opensolaris kernel 
like is doing with ubuntu?

   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell at

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list