Debate on Linux Virtual Memory Handling

xturnip sent us a good piece running over at Byte about Linux's VM. Somewhat more technical then the stuff we usually see online, this one talks about different VM systems, and the egos in the kernel. Its worth a read.

Comments

It should all be configurable.

[Anton Anatopopov]

The VM policy of the OS should be tweakable in the same way that you can dynamically load and unload modules. I see nothing controversial about this. Some people prefer random page ejection to lease recently used. Others think that demand paging can be improved upon.

I say, include it all in the kernel and make it configurable by the user. After all, most Linux users are pretty tech-savvy, they are unlikely to wreck their machines (the way windoze lusers do every time they tweak their registry).

What do others think ?

To fork, or not to fork

[imrdkl]

From the article:

Nobody has yet dared to speak of a Linux source fork, but this is dangerously close to one.

Is this truly dangerous? If so, why? Why not let the 2 VM's compete and the users will decide?

Better to split than stagnate.

Re:To fork, or not to fork

[mwalker]

Better to split than stagnate.


True, look at the success of the "Gnome vs. KDE" split.

Re:OSS Power

[skyhawker]

Sure they could - provided all of the users of XP were the sort of people who don't mind downloading and recompiling a new kernel every two weeks.

Are you saying that the users of Microsoft Windows XP can download and recompile the OS? I'm not familiar with this new licensing arrangement that Microsoft must now provide. I will say this much for Microsoft. They do respond quickly to critical bugs in their software -- often within months, sometimes within weeks.