On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Martin Langhoff
<martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Miloslav Trmač
<mitr(a)volny.cz> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Miller
> <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> This is a draft of the proposal I'm presenting at Flock, "An
Architecture
>> for a More Agile Fedora" (<
http://sched.co/19ugKGM>).
> (The more high-level comment.)
>
> This essentially explicitly gives up on the idea of "Fedora" or,
> implicitly, "Linux" as a "platform"^W/"deployment
target"/"ecosystem"
Quite the opposite, I would say.
The BSDs show that you can maintain a highly integrated small core OS
with a tiny team. Android has shown it can be done on top of the Linux
kernel. The traditional Linux distros are comparatively flailing at it
-- throwing a ton more resources at it, badly coordinated.
I mostly agree with this
part.
If Fedora moves to a tightly integrated core, and does it in a way
that other distros follow, Linux could grow a small core that moves in
sync with the kernel and outpaces the competition.
This proposal doesn't seem to make rings 0 or 1 particularly more
integrated - just smaller; and it places a higher barrier to entry to
adding useful functionality to the core.
Want to add new a JSON library, HTTPS library with OCSP support, DNS
resolver to the integrated core? Sorry, 30% of the stacks are on a
2-year lifecycle and can't use it now; other 30% have decided to ship
unmodified upstream code and will not integrate any Fedora
Core-specific patches.
Mirek