On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 03:26:45PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> "Alexander S . Guy" wrote:
>
> > I dunno, it seems like you should get the above fully operational before you
>
> > start requesting that specialized code be included w/ the mainline kernel.
>
> ---
> Experience in the open-source community for us has been to "release early" and "release often".
> Experience has show that trying to get one gigantic patch accepted by the community and into
> the kernel is generally like trying to get that patch through an eye of a needle -- very difficult.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't expose the patches to people. I'm just saying that you might
(and I'm not trying to be rude here, and I might be totally off base), have something that
actually provides functionality before you start adding hooks into the kernel.
> It's my belief that putting in small individually useful chunks will allow more people to jump
> onboard with later coding and design issues. It's something akin to "open design".
For something this important, I'd like to see more of an open architectural process happening, w/
a real plan of attack.
> We'd like to see as many of our changes mainline as possible by release time so that any kernel
> using those changes and release using the modified programs could claim the "C2" or "CAPP" feature
> set. We would like to also release all of our evaluation evidence/documentation so anyone else
> could pick it up and much more easily create their own evaluated system -- like VA or IBM or HP --
> making them much more likely to get what they need in Linux and more likely to lessen their need
> for other OS's, again increasing Linux market penetration.
Why don't you release a working add-on to Linux (going back to pcmcia-cs as an example), that people
can pick up and use in their distributions. I don't know about other people think, but I couldn't
give a rat's ass about claiming certification. I want an architected security solution that is
comprehensive, and actually functions.
> If we can't contribute, we could be forced off into a dark and dimly lit corner somewhere where
> they shove pizza under our doors/over the cube walls. are allowed to only release the
> minimum necessary to comply with GPL, minimally benefit the Linux Community and incur
> large numbers of brain-numbingly repetitions tasks related to retrofits and maintenance. This
> would be bad...tres sad. Terrible fate...etc. Never allowed outdoors or to talk to strangers...all
> sorts of ickiness. :-o (:-)).
Hahaha.. I'm not saying ``don't contribute'', I'm saying, ``contribute code that actually
supplies real functionality''. I'd hate for something as big as trusted status to have the
same real functionality as some of those v0.1 MP3 archiver scripts on freshmeat.. it's easy
to hype, it's harder to get something that actually works.
Alexander
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:11 EST