Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 13:26, Hannes Hirzel wrote:
> > As Goran points out some additional ideas to include VM alternatives
> > might be very helpful (Anthonys VM, PhiHo Hoang)
> >=20
> In XP terms, I like to see them as 'spikes'. Someone has a neat idea or
> an itch to scratch, forks off, and implements a VM enhancements.
> However, for most of these, I think that the final goal should be to
> review these ideas and fold them back into the mainstream (either the
> differences 'as-is', or similar functionality implemented in a way that
> the community finds acceptable and will still scratch the itch).=20
> 
> Because of this and because I think it is eminently important to prevent
> VM-level forks I would propose to keep 'friction' as high as possible
> and therefore ignore VM forks in categorizing, naming, process
> descriptions, etcetera.=20
> 

I agree and I especially like the layers graph Goran did because it
captures
nicely the complexity.

- The core packages directly sit on the kernel.
- The base packages use the core packages and the kernel.
- The extra packages use the base, the core and the kernel packages.

I think all these situations apply.

I would remove then the two blue rectangles at the left hand
side "unofficial kernels" and "unofficial VMs"

In case there is an agreement on the graph we can put it
on the swiki.

-- Hannes