3 ms·
They should take Windows 95 approach and try to detect programs that need special behavior, perhaps even include a list of binary names. This goes against the e
by phendrenad2 5y ago
They should take Windows 95 approach and try to detect programs that need special behavior, perhaps even include a list of binary names. This goes against the ethos of clean elegant solutions that the FOSS world likes, but at some point we have to realize that the kernel is enterprise code, and we need enterprise solutions sometimes (read: hacky).
- rwmj 5y agoIn open source this isn't necessary since you can just go in and fix the broken programs and not carry deadweight workarounds forever. And some don't care too much about broken closed source programs.
- phendrenad2 5y agoYou're exactly right. However, not all programs running on Linux are FOSS. And while you may not care about broken closed-source programs, you can't really say "we don't care" because you don't speak for the entire FOSS community, and I think if you look at it again, you'll find that the FOSS community DOES care (in actions not so much in words) about corporate sponsorship, especially for the Linux kernel.
- mst 5y agoI wonder if such hackery could be enabled via ebpf such that distro vendors could make an active choice to do that via default configuration rather than needing to get it into mainline. (I am ... ambivalent, let us say ... about whether I -approve- of people doing so in any given case, but I definitely believe in them having the option)
- pjmlp 5y agoI would bet IBM and Red-Hat care a lot.
- rwmj 5y agoRed Hat works with software partners to port and fix their software for Linux - in fact I was doing some of that exact activity earlier today, helping to port a program for a partner to GCC 12 (combined with hardening flags, it breaks a bunch of previously working C/C++ code).