What is far more likely is that they did not test the impact of the changes on every piece of third party software out there – including VMWare. This is not surprising.

The GPL module licensing issue is likely a general change, the impact of which on VMWare was either not considered, or more likely, not even known.

Expect a fix from the kernel team shortly – and until then, since this kernel just came out, it’s hardly a big deal. If you’re running servers, you don’t arbitrarily update your kernel unless you really need the enhancements, anyway, so most users running VMWare probably won’t be affected until a kernel fix is implemented.

How that fix will be implemented is a good question, but I doubt it will involve any religious wars on the part of the kernel maintainers. Linus is not into religious wars, and when he sees this problem, it will get fixed.

You are running Feisty with 2.6.23.1? I would like to talk to you about the process you used to achieve this. My e-mail is akutz BLARG at FUBAR lostcreations dot NOT SPAM com.

compile your own …

That said, I do wish that the vmware folks and the kernel folks would work more closely together. There really is no reason why the new stable kernel should not always work with vmware when it is released.

Against VMware? Are you joking? I am very much in favor of VMware Are you sure you are using the 2.6.23 Kernel? It only came out a few days ago. Maybe you think I was implying that VMware Server somehow uses this Kernel. That is not what I meant. Read my response to a similar comment below.

Everyone,

The any-any patch did not work for me on 2.6.23. I was testing it on FC 8 Test 3 (7.92) after running “yum update” to update the Kernel.

Janardhanan,

I apologize for not clarifying my remarks. I am referring to a Linux distro that uses 2.6.23 that you install VMware Server on. Does that help clear things up?

What is missing here.

Many of these people are the same ones who refuse to define a consistent kernel-module API specifically to hinder the development of binary blob kernel modules. They make noise about wanting the freedom to refactor kernel internals without having to support a legacy API*, but they also freely admit that it’s as much religious as technical: they want to force the proprietary module developers to put their modules into the mainline kernel source (and yes, I’ve read this exact sentiment expressed on public mailing lists by Linux kernel developers, so I’m not making this up).

*The technical issue is a red herring. They could do what Apple started doing in OS X 10.4: standardize the kernel API in a structured way that facilitates deprecating old APIs when the time comes, but at the same time keeping them around for a certain length of time to give module authors time to update their code. It takes more time to get rid of an old API this way, but it still works.

I call this “religious-based programming”: “You’re not allowed to use my API unless you believe the same way I do.” It seems to afflict people who care more about their forcing their views on others than about producing software that anyone can use. That l-k message you reference demonstrates it better than I ever could:

> Some kernel developers are unhappy with providing external interfaces
> to their code, only to see those interfaces being used by binary only
> modules. They view it as their work being appropriated. Whether you
> agree with that view or not is completely irrelevant, the person who
> owns the copyright decides how their work can be used.

I fail to see how this attitude of selfish arrogance is any different than the attitude of the movie and music industries, which seek to use ever more restrictive forms of DRM to control all aspects of how consumers make use of their content. EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL is essentially a form of DRM: “You can only use this API in ways that I allow you to.”

This is all quite ironic, or perhaps hypocritical, since the religion in question claims to be all about freedom. These people particularly despise DRM when the content companies use it, but they’re completely blind to the fact that they’re doing the same thing themselves. I guess it’s OK for them to do it because they have purer motives.

And no, I don’t dislike the GPL, I just dislike how some people choose to use it as a sledge hammer to bludgeon non-believers. It’s people like us, who just want to Make Things Go, who end up paying the price.