[Lf_carrier] CGL and the Linux Foundation
Dan Kohn
dan at dankohn.com
Thu May 10 23:48:25 PDT 2007
On May 10, 2007, at 11:28 PM, Takashi Ikebe wrote:
> I agree that.
> Basically CGL is the Linux that applicable on carrier equipment.
> This means the CGL is different from general purpose Linux.
> Network equipment typically requires high availability, real time
> capability (response time), serviceability than scalability and
> total throughput.
> I think general purpose computing prefer latter.
> Therefore I think the acceptance of community is hard because of
> carrier specific functionality. and that's why CGL exists.
Thank you for your comments. I agree that this is the premise that
has largely driven CGL in the past.
What is confusing to me is that a very large amount of carrier
equipment (if not the majority) runs on Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Red Hat explicitly has a policy against having "carrier Red Hat",
"secure Red Hat", etc.
Please note that the LF is not partial to any one distribution.
Further, I agree that the options compiled into Linux on a mobile
phone will be very different from those used for compiling Linux used
on a mobile base station. But one of the great strength of Linux, I
would argue, is that all implementations derive directly from the
same mainline. When CGL requires (in order to be compliant with P1
requirements) the use of patches that have been explicitly rejected
by the relevant kernel subsystem maintainers, it comes very close to
promoting a fork. Of course, since Linux is GPLed, any organization
can fork it at any time. But no one has wanted to do so because of
the enormous cost of maintaining such a fork.
I would appreciate if you could provide some specific examples
(perhaps from the CGL 4.0 spec) of NTT requirements whose
implementations were explicitly rejected by the kernel community. I
greatly appreciate NTT's involvement with CGL and the LF. Further, I
know that the kernel community values the input of end users like NTT
in specifying where the Linux kernel is not adequate today.
I am suggesting, however, a change in focus in CGL toward specifying
requirements (what and why) and away from specifying
implementations. Further, I believe it is in the entire Linux
community's interest to avoid a fork.
- dan
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan at dankohn.com>
COO, The Linux Foundation <http://www.linux-foundation.org>
<http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-415-233-1000>
More information about the Lf_carrier
mailing list