kernel-libre (hopefully 100% Free) for Fedora 8 and rawhide

Dave Jones davej at redhat.com
Tue Mar 25 18:35:37 UTC 2008


On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 02:18:01PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

 > > And neglecting to remove plenty of other firmware.
 > Examples are welcome.

I gave one below..

 > > And not just in the kernel either.
 > Then it's out of scope for this project.

Which was ignored.
If you have this kind of selective 'vision', then I really don't see what
the point of tihs exercise is at all.

 > > The x86 microcode updater is a pretty essential thing to have run
 > > during bootup. Some early Pentium III's locked up when running 2.6
 > > kernels under load unless they had an update applied.
 > 
 > And people don't take it up to Intel that they shipped a defective
 > product?

I challenge you to find a single microprocessor that has ever shipped
without errata.

 > > Removing this package will make you more "free" at the expense
 > > of breaking some percentage of the userbase.
 > > This "well my system is ok, screw everyone else" approach is what I find
 > > so fundamentally broken in this idea.
 > 
 > You misunderstand the idea.
 > 
 > Everyone who's talking about removing stuff from Fedora misunderstood
 > the suggestion.
 > 
 > I'm talking about adding a new package, that's all.  The original
 > package will be unchanged.
 > 
 > I'm not asking you to change your procedures.
 > 
 > I'm not asking you to help me maintain it.
 > 
 > I'm not asking you to stop doing what you're doing.
 > 
 > > Especially as the people advocating for this aren't those who get to
 > > deal with the fallout when users start filing bugs.
 > 
 > What part of separate package maintained by myself did you not
 > understand?
 > 
 > Or are you volunteering to take over these efforts? :-)

Are you volunteering to prefilter all the incoming kernel bugs
to triage the bugs affected by your alternative ?

	Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list