From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 05:24:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 05:24:01 -0400 Received: from pD951F7B2.dip.t-dialin.net ([217.81.247.178]:63748 "EHLO emma1.emma.line.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 25 Jun 2001 05:23:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:23:53 +0200 From: Matthias Andree To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: The Joy of Forking Message-ID: <20010625112353.D13348@emma1.emma.line.org> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200106240950.FAA07005@smarty.smart.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200106240950.FAA07005@smarty.smart.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.19i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Rick Hohensee wrote: > 2.4.5 is 26 meg now. It's time to consider forking the kernel. Alan has > already stuck his tippy-toe is that pool, and his toe is fine. > For a client-use Linux kernel, I suggest, and will be and have been > persuing, features and non-features such as... > > forget POSIX [junk] > In short, an open source OS for end-users should be very serious about > simplicity, and not just pay lip-service to it. There is evidence of the > value of this in the marketplace. What doesn't exist is an OS where > simplicity is systemic. This is why end-user issues pertain to the kernel > at all. This is how open source should be. Simple, or at least clear, > through and through. Linux has lost a lot of simplicity since I got into > it in '96, and that is a loss. Don't feed the trolls. The underlying kernel is nothing compared to an entire system. End-users don't mock with kernels but install their vendor's RPM, plus compiled Linux kernels are usually so much smaller on my machines than FreeBSD kernels. So just ignore this.