- From: Michael Enright <michael.enright@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:38:18 -0700
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Manu Sporny<msporny at digitalbazaar.com> wrote: > > I can git clone the Linux kernel, mess around with it and submit a patch > to any number of kernel maintainers. If that patch is rejected, I can > still share the changes with others in the community. Using the same > tools as everybody else, I can refine the patch until there is a large > enough group of people that agree, and implementation feedback to back > up the patch, where I may have another chance of resubmitting the patch > for re-review. This mechanism is a fundamental part of the community. I think you have incorrectly characterized the kernel maintenance process. For one thing, Linus Torvalds is the gatekeeper. For another thing, there is no sense that some sort of consensus will get a patch accepted if LT finds it deficient. You may maintain a fork if you want, or apply patches if you want, but this doesn't translate into ratification of the fork or patches as an accepted part of "standard" Linux; many people and organizations use ReiserFS, which is not accepted but which many people think should be accepted, and many observers (excluding myself) feel that the chief barrier to ReiserFS acceptance was political. I think these inaccuracies, and characterization of the Linux kernel process as wide open, greatly degrade your argument.
Received on Thursday, 23 July 2009 17:38:18 UTC