kernel-libre (hopefully 100% Free) for Fedora 8 and rawhide
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
I challenge you to find a single microprocessor that has ever shipped
> > 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
> 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 ?
More information about the devel