Kernel thread scheduling

[ruben@mrbrklyn.com (Ruben Safir)]

On 04/16/2015 02:47 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> We're comparing closed Coverty-as-a-service with closed Google-as-a-service.
> Seems like a good analogy to me.


well it isn't.  It is not demonizing them to state the facts.  First of
all, search engines do something you can't do with software, which is
crawl the internet.  The correct analogy is what google is doing with
android, which indeed is repulsive because it is inhibiting access and
development on the platform, and then worse than that, claiming that it
is all "open" when really it is not.



http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on-android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/


I have the source code for the kernel here.  If Coventry would be
interested in selling me a free software of their application, I might
be interested.  But I'm not interested in putting kernel tools behind
slavewalls.  That is exactly the opposite of what I want to do and
defies my very Raison E'Stat for studying the Linux Kernel....

nono.  If you find this Demonizing, it is not I who does this, it is
facts stated forthrightly and dispassionately.  Someone who uses closed
proprietary  software as a service to access the Linux Kernel Source is
cutting off the very air to free software development by supporting
non-free tools that compete with free tools in learning about the source
code.  Using free software tools is not a technological decision.  It is
a political decision (as all decisions ultimately are).  It is a
decision to exercise freedom over a __lack__ of freedom.

Aside from that, the question of google is irrelevant to this
conversation and is just a distraction.  Tow wrongs don't make a right.
 A company that has a search engine that uses published free software
would be much more desirable than one that doesn't do that.  No one
wants to penalize anyone for selling software services.  But that is not
reason to abandon free software tools for the studying of the kernel in
order to adopt a proprietary scheme of secret software sold as a
service.  That would just be irrational.

Ruben