[inafield]

Narrator's comment, to which I was responding, implied that some might want a fork because the host is a 'bad' host.

The other barrier is the effort required to compete with what is currently the most used Linux kernel base. It's not like forking OpenOffice, KDevelop, or Eclipse where you can compete as an alternative on top of a standard OS. It's replacing the basis of the OS that everything else is written to work for.

[jlgreco]

There are absolutely no technical limitations to forking the kernel. Hell, even XFree86 got forked. Make a point of not breaking userland (aside: one of the things Linus flames for) and you will be fine in the short term until you fail to implement features that Linux proper implements and others choose to use.

The problems with forking are social. You are only going to have a handful of people working with you instead of Linus (because nobody cares that Linus can be a meanie) and as a consequence you are only going to have a handful of people using your fork instead of Linus' (because nobody cares that Linus can be a meanie). Because of this progress on Linux will progress faster than progress on your fork, which will make your fork obsolete (but nobody would care, because nobody would be using it, because nobody cares that Linus is a meanie).

These are not problems with forking Linux. These are problems with forking anything if nobody cares about your fork.

[subsystem]

"because nobody cares that Linus can be a meanie"

The thing with being abusive is that people won't actually tell you what they really think.

[jlgreco]

If you really think there is demand, then by all means, fork. Nothing should be stopping you if there is demand.