4 ms·

I was pointing out the existence of a governing body and a core team on FreeBSD, for which there is no analogue on Linux. There is no "the main Linux repository

I was pointing out the existence of a governing body and a core team on FreeBSD, for which there is no analogue on Linux. There is no "the main Linux repository".

masklinn 9y ago
> there is no analogue on Linux. There is no "the main Linux repository". Of course there is. Linus decides what goes into the mainline kernel, his repository is literally called "Linux kernel source tree"[0], with the stable "archive" being sensibly called "Linux kernel stable tree"[1], and Linux's analogue to the freebsd core team is de-facto Linus and his trusted maintainers, the people from whom he reviews and pulls commits. [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/about/ https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/ https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux...
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  You don't understand. This is a list of people who have ownership over some part of Linux: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/MAINTAINERS https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/MAINTAINERS Linus might have the "final say" but all of the work and knowledge is encapsulated in these people and they are generally given the autonomy to organize and maintain their subsystems as they see fit. As for Linus's tree, it's probably the most Linux Linux that's out there, but it's hardly the only one. Hardly anyone actually runs Linux from Linus's tree. Most distros maintain their own trees with their own patchsets.
  - masklinn 9y ago
    > You don't understand I perfectly understand that you're trying to excuse the utter clusterfuck that is the linux project's handling of security notifications, apparently on the grounds that they don't have their shit together and refuse to do so, ever. > Most distros maintain their own trees with their own patchsets. Yeah, and they can actually be trusted to not break embargoes.
- johnbellone 9y ago
  Yes, at a macro level that is how it works, but practically due to having an enormous number of distributions there are many more forks. For example, the CentOS distribution maintains their kernel[0] separately from RHEL. [0]: https://git.centos.org/summary/?r=rpms/kernel.git https://git.centos.org/summary/?r=rpms/kernel.git
  - masklinn 9y ago
    That's not "the linux kernel" though, and distros are semi-separate actors which you can interact with independently from the baseline kernel — which happened here incidentally, Lima's original comment notes that Red Hat was contacted separately from the core kernel. Something which will likely be more common in the future if the mainline kernel team don't fix their handling of embargoes, they're incentivising security researcher towards having them discover vulnerabilities at embargo lifting along with the rest of the world.

I was pointing out the existence of a governing body and a core team on FreeBSD, for which there is no analogue on Linux. There is no "the main Linux repository".

masklinn 9y ago

> there is no analogue on Linux. There is no "the main Linux repository". Of course there is. Linus decides what goes into the mainline kernel, his repository is literally called "Linux kernel source tree"[0], with the stable "archive" being sensibly called "Linux kernel stable tree"[1], and Linux's analogue to the freebsd core team is de-facto Linus and his trusted maintainers, the people from whom he reviews and pulls commits. [0] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/about/ https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/lin... [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git/ https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux...

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
You don't understand. This is a list of people who have ownership over some part of Linux: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/MAINTAINERS https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/MAINTAINERS Linus might have the "final say" but all of the work and knowledge is encapsulated in these people and they are generally given the autonomy to organize and maintain their subsystems as they see fit. As for Linus's tree, it's probably the most Linux Linux that's out there, but it's hardly the only one. Hardly anyone actually runs Linux from Linus's tree. Most distros maintain their own trees with their own patchsets.
- masklinn 9y ago
  > You don't understand I perfectly understand that you're trying to excuse the utter clusterfuck that is the linux project's handling of security notifications, apparently on the grounds that they don't have their shit together and refuse to do so, ever. > Most distros maintain their own trees with their own patchsets. Yeah, and they can actually be trusted to not break embargoes.
johnbellone 9y ago
Yes, at a macro level that is how it works, but practically due to having an enormous number of distributions there are many more forks. For example, the CentOS distribution maintains their kernel[0] separately from RHEL. [0]: https://git.centos.org/summary/?r=rpms/kernel.git https://git.centos.org/summary/?r=rpms/kernel.git
- masklinn 9y ago
  That's not "the linux kernel" though, and distros are semi-separate actors which you can interact with independently from the baseline kernel — which happened here incidentally, Lima's original comment notes that Red Hat was contacted separately from the core kernel. Something which will likely be more common in the future if the mainline kernel team don't fix their handling of embargoes, they're incentivising security researcher towards having them discover vulnerabilities at embargo lifting along with the rest of the world.