[Beowulf] scheduler policy design
Peter St. John
peter.st.john at gmail.com
Fri Apr 27 11:42:25 PDT 2007
It's great that all y'all recognize a reliable standard source of good
kernels, but I'm missing something. My understanding of the license is that
I can download Red Hat, hack and slash to my heart's content (e.g.
integrating symbolic galois extension fields into tcsh), and sell it as
"Pete's Linux Version 1.00" and the kernel would just be whatever I
compiled to boot ab initio.
P.S. if I have compiled with more features than others, it is because I have
stood on the shoulders of giants. In my lifetime, Linus stands on the
shoulders of Ken.
On 4/27/07, Mark Hahn <hahn at mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> > There is a unique numbering system for linux kernels? What is it? I've
> > always thought of kernels as being part of distros.
> distros are just eyecandy, and the kernel they ship is normally
> patched out of all recognition. sometimes some suffixes are added
> to hint of this, but they understate the case: 2.6.9-42.0.10.ELsmp
> is only vaguely related to the true 2.6.9 from kernel.org. I don't
> know whether distros have caught onto the fact that kernel.org
> has a nice system for choosing sequences of stable branches within
> the sequence of development versions (18.104.22.168 for instance - there
> is no stable version of 2.6.21 yet.) here's the last few kernels:
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 536 536 40956221 Apr 22 23:06
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 536 536 43377437 Apr 25 21:21
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 536 536 43997476 Apr 26 03:23
> -rw-rw-r-- 1 536 536 43373745 Apr 26 07:15
> note two active stable branches...
> in any case, kernels are a thing unto themselves, certainly not beholden
> or subsurvient to distros. I normally use kernel.org kernels on machines
> where I care (servers, clusters), but lazily leave the distro kernel on my
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Beowulf