[Sussex] Would a p2p Kernel tree work ?

[Gareth Ablett]

In no particular reply but on the subject.

The idea is sound on the bases that the user knows what he/she 
is doing. There for the user can determine whether to patch 
the kernel after looking at said patch, this would then only 
be a useful tool for the more advanced user of Linux. But 
then I would suppose the beginner user may not want to patch 
there kernel in this way anyhow.

There for this would be a brilliant tool for people that could 
write there own kernel patches but cant be arsed. :)

Gareth Ablett
Systems Developer

ITP Services Ltd.
http://www.itpserve.co.uk/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recipient acknowledges that ITP Services Ltd is unable to control
the content of information in transmitting mail and attachments over the
Internet. ITP Services Ltd makes no warranty as to the quality,
accuracy and content of information contained in or with this message.
In
reading, opening or receiving this e-mail the recipient accepts full
responsibility for its content and attachments. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Crowhurst [mailto:fyremoon at fyremoon.net]
> Sent: 01 June 2003 8:31 pm
> To: sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [Sussex] Would a p2p Kernel tree work ?
> 
> > which is why I qualified the question with , assuming Security could
be
> > handled..... so please lets not go down the thread most trodden.
> > security in p2p for this question not relevant. Yet !
> 
> I didn't mean security of p2p, but more some idiot thinks that
> kernel32.dll should be called USB2 driver for example. You download it
in
> good faith to find out that it isn't what it says on the label.
> 
> >> I know what I'd like to see though, p2p compilations, like the
people
> >> who crack rc5, they download a section of stored data, which is
> >> compiled and returned to the server (like distcc, but on a
worldwide
> >> scale)
> > this is what i meant, but using p2p to discover other clients who
share
> > similar hardware architecture and grab/offer relevant patches to
match
> > the architecture.
> 
> Its a nice idea, but I suspect that there would be more broken patches
> than good ones, unless you have some kind of crash protection built
in,
> but even so, how would you know that the patch from person A is going
to
> work better than the patch from person B.
> 
> On the other hand, having the ability to find a new driver for item X,
> simply by sharing your drivers and patches would indeed be a useful
thing
> to have.
> 
> It would be interesting to implement, especially to find out that you
have
> a new device that your system can't identify, to find a driver that
> identifies it. A bit like a p2p version of windows search for
> plug-and-crash hardware.
> 
> --
> John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Sussex mailing list
> Sussex at mailman.lug.org.uk
> http://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/sussex