Slashdot Mirror
Ars Technica Interviews Robert Love
functor writes "Ars Technica has interviewed kernel hacker Robert M. Love of MontaVista/Ximian fame. He covers current and future developments in the Linux kernel and on the desktop, particularly concerning the Linux process scheduler and its enhancements for system responsiveness and also his work toward Project Utopia, an effort to make Linux's device management on the (GNOME) desktop transparent and seamless. (Robert Love is the principal hacker who worked on kernel preemption for the Linux 2.6 kernel.)"
The standard KDE argument:
>A GNOME spreadsheet you want Miguel? Don't worry. The way things are
>looking, I can hack one out in a few days. We will borrow from X, Y, and Z
>projects since they have most of the functionality we need. It will be a
>matter of fitting them all together."
I find it always funny that KDE supporters always list re-use of existing libraries as a big minus point of Gnome, as if it is a bad thing to re-use and adopt none-Gnome supporting libraries,
It is my vision that this is one of the great strengths of Gnome. In Gnome the supporting libraries are almost never Gnome dependent they often use already existing libraries or help to modify them too their needs, without Gnome-ifying them. When they create a new one for use in Gnome they tend too make it as generic as possible, With this sort of philosophy you create functionality that is easily adopted by other projects or was already in use or planned to get used. Things like Cairo (X-server), Fontconfig, ATK, etc. This is exactly why this functionality is popping up everywhere in open-source land. Which makes the KDE supporters scream that Gnome is taking everything over. This isn't true, but Gnome by using the above philosophy, doesn't alienate itself from other Linux/*nix projects in stark contrast too KDE. Gnome is not only about building a great desktop, it is about building modular desktop technology that can be used and reused by more projects then Gnome only, which make Gnome more cooperative too other projects then KDE.
As example below a quote from Robert Love (from kernel fame) in a interview too Arts-Technica developing for Ximian about his project Utopia:
[Begin quote]
Love: Project Utopia's goal is to fully integrate the Linux system, from the kernel on up the stack, through the GNOME desktop, its applications, and finally to the user. Therefore, Project Utopia is very GNOME-specific.
But Project Utopia is composed of many small components, and each component is intentionally being developed separately and abstractly. Thus, a GNOME desktop (or any desktop) is not required for much of the functionality and another desktop environment could (and should!) provide the missing pieces.
The system is architect-ed in such a way that the only components actually at the desktop layer are policy mechanisms, such as gnome-volume-manager, and glue layers/libraries, such as any forthcoming notification system.
Components such as udev and hotplug are obviously entirely agnostic to the rest of the system, as they are (or will be) required pieces of nearly any Linux system. Other components, such as D-BUS and HAL, can likewise fit into any system. I very much hope that both of those projects find wide adoption.
In response to your example, I think that a server with no desktop environment would still benefit from this work. In fact, it would just use Project Utopia as far up the stack as needed, definitely making use of udev, D-BUS, and HAL.
[End Quote]
Now do you think that at KDE they will be glad to get such technology? Oh sure they will take it and probably "adapt" it (like the Borg that is) into there desktop, but for sure the work they will put into it will only benefit KDE and while this is happening they will scream and whine till the end that Gnome is about adopting and Gnome-ifying (giving project Utopia as example off-course, because the technology will get adapted in lots of non-gnome projects), while little somebody else can use is coming from the KDE community (it is all of the KDE or die, look at Red-hat and user-Linux how KDE treads other visions).
The question is: Do you want a *nux/Linux community desktop which takes from (Fontconfig, Cairo, librsvg, etc) and gives too (Project Utopia, GTK+, Freedesktop.org, Gstreamer, ATK, Pango, etc) other projects (Xfree86, XFCE4, etc) without making everything it touches Gnome or do we want the none-*nix/Linux philosophy of one big API in the form of a win32 clone which alienates everything no
...is a bad idea. Who are the users to think their trivial tasks are more important than the kernel's?
How about David the Gnome?
One of the great things about Linux's scheduler is that it is O(1).
0(1) is a "term" from computer science. When applied to schedulers, it basically means that no matter how many processes there are to schedule, a 0(1) scheduler's overhead will not significantly increase.
Of course, with a small number of threads/processes to schedule, the Linux 0(1) scheduler will have greater initial overhead. It isn't until there are quite a few processes that it starts to show its power, and the more processes there are, the more useful it is.
On a busy server with 4+ processors and thousands of processes, a standard scheduler's overhead is so great that it often exceeds the overhead of most of the individual server processes.
With computer hardware more than anything else and computer software less than anything else, you get what you pay for.
>>esr>>
David the Gnome. Who is he? Is he good or is he whack?
This was already covered some time ago.
I hope that don't name it Utopia?
Fruitopia would be better.
Even better, Diet x86 classic: The choice of the geek generation.
He's on teh spoke.
I was on the linux-kernel mailing list and all I got was spam from Microsoft trying to sell me OS enlargement pills and spam from Intel trying to sell 7 minute SMT support (if it doesn't work in 7 minutes they throw in the extra minute for free.)
I haven't had enough sleep, because that headline came out as "Slashdot Interviews Robot Love". I thought we were going to have the interesting story of the worlds first robot pornstar.
Oh well, back to my deranged little world...
People that believe in their opinions don't post AC.
who thought this said "An Interview with Random Love?"
Linux already works fine as a desktop; what most potential switchers need are a few good apps to fill the role of Quickbooks, Exchange, iMovie and a handfull of other programs. They're happy with any schedular as long as their ogg/mp3 player doesn't skip while loading a big spreadsheet.
As to GNOME and KDE? Well, they're fine if you think all Microsoft's HCI mistakes are outweighed by the need to make it easy for their users to switch to an equally badly designed system. I don't and so I couldn't care less about what the programmers on these projects are wasting their time on this week.
My wish list for the desktop is: a decent file system which stores meta-data beyond the file name and date stamp, a program which decodes the data in Quickbook files so I can import into Gnucash, and a single, working, font system. None of these are very urgent but they're all more urgent than anything mentioned in the article.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
An other example is the evolution-back-end-server that will get implemented in Gnome-2.6. KDE franticly trying too overthrown evolution as best group-ware client is developing Kroupware binding it closely too KDE. what does the Gnome project (Ximian) do? Franticly developing a new version of Evolution, fueling the controversy and try to lock everybody in Gnome? No, they split it, they make a server and (Gnome) client, providing a general calender, contact server for everybody who wants it without binding it to Gnome (giving other project a tool to create great non-gnome clients). Now tell me again what do we want? *nix/Linux philosophy on the desktop or the alien win32 API clone approach?
Damn that Neal. And why is he a cowboy? He must have evolved. Last time on the Tick he was a dinosaur.
Project Utopia is going to glue a whole bunch of stuff together. Meanwhile, some of the pieces look interesting.
Is udev ready for use by typical Linux users (as opposed to kernel hackers)? How about sysfs -- that is just part of 2.6 and is completely ready, right? How about D-BUS?
Meanwhile, on a flamefest^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion about KDE and GNOME, I saw a claim made that "hardly any GNOME applications use Bonobo". Is that true? If it is true, is it changing? (Wasn't a Network Object Model one of the fundamental things about gNOMe?)
I browsed RML's blog, and some of the screenshots look really cool. I'm really looking forward to this stuff.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
This terminology didn't originate in C.S.: it's been used in physics before the Eniac was even born and in maths even before that.
It's general meaning is that the entity described as being O(something) responds to a variation of "something" like "something"'s power that apears between the braces, i.e. here it's a constant, so the scheduler wont respond at all. You can have O(x), wich responds linearly to x's variations, O(x^2) wich responds quadraticly (non-linear comportements begin here), and so on...
Furthermore: it's not 0(1) (zero(1))... it's O(1) (O as in "Order of")
For a minute, I was honestly wondering why on earth Ars would interview Rob Lowe.
Cheers,
IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
the subject speaks for itself
harmonious design
Yup, it was already covered before, but thanks anyway.
I don't like Fruitopia but I love Bawls. Squeeze 'em. Juice 'em. Bawls is the choice for any serious Gaymer.
not to complain, but I remember one of the first beta lists I ever was on was for the product called "Microsoft Project Utopia" which apparently was the internal code name of the development project later to be released as "Microsoft Bob".
Just thought you'd find this interesting ehhe
What makes him worthy of such high praise?
(not to mention Evolution) So just the major GNOME apps then?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
For those who are interested (and happen to be in Brussels on October 21), Robert Love is one of the speakers at FOSDEM 2004.
He will talk about "The Linux kernel and the desktop".
Mod the parent down. If you'll notice, his "Raymond is spelled R-a-y-r-n-o-n-d. He's a clever troll who uses ESR's stature and reputation to gain mod points. I wouldn't be suprised if he copied the whole post out of another source just to karma whore.
Well, so far I haven't heard that SuSE employees were taught to use Gtk *shudder*, but I've heard at Novell that Ximian coders had to participate in Qt lessons pretty often ;-)
...
So that might answer who might eradicate whom
this could be cutting room material from Ballard's Crash...Debra Unger as the goat?
Stop your gay whining, Mac fanboy.
I saw "Ars Technica Reviews Robot Love", seriously.
Registering accounts later than some other chrisb since 1997
Pure bullshit!
gpdf, ggv, evolution, gnome-panel, all the applets (of course), gedit, gnome-termianl, gnome-speech (used by a11y), gnome-spell (bonobo component for spelling), evolution, file roller, gnome meeting
and for non gnome programs:
rhythmbox, balsa, and many more.
I do agree that it could be used more in some areas.
> Well, it is now 2004, and KParts is a phenomenal
> success on KDE, thanks to its simplicity and
> power
Yup, except they are now replacing dcop for dbus.
Bonobo is also showing its age. It has nothing to do with what is better, i sjust has to do with the fact that these technologies start showing some age as thier target usage changes over the years. Sometimes its possible to salvage the library and add the features, somtimes it isnt. Bonobo is showing some signs of age, wether it wll be salvaged or replaced in the future, not even the developers can tell...
Also, when programming in bonobo you hardly touch CORBA beyond very simple marginal issues. What yo program is in the bonobo api ONLY which is a nice wrapper for it.
Oh... wait... Rob LoVe!.... ok... never mind..
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
> as long as you are a Linux guru
Don't sabotog your argument with such language.
I can show you a whole bunch of people who use Linux as a desktop and aren't computer experts. The bulk of the Slashdot userbase.
I'm not a Linux guru but I certanlly use it for my desktop. Cmdr ("Do I LOOK like I could make a Linux Destro?") Taco is yet annother example.
It dosen't take a computer expert to pull up a shell SU into root start up the Linux config tools and recompile the Linux kernel.
Nither dose it take a Linux guru to build Linux from scratch or a PC expert to build a PC or an automotive expert to change your oil.
But....
Grandma dosen't change her oil she takes it into the shop and they do it.
I could build my own table.. Not that difficult. But it's enough work that I'd rather buy one premade.
That is how it is with Linux right now.
MOST people could run it but for most people it's a lot of work.
I don't actually exist.
You'd see this is a troll of Eric S. Ray R N ord. I can see how in some fonts, the rn would look like an m, but I would hope that most moderators would look past the (incorrect) name and see the (incorrect) facts presented.
Tra la la.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
O(1) is more from mathematics than CS, really. It's only since we're now implementing those algorithms on computers, that it is a CS term.
A O(1) scheduler may very well be increasing, as long as it is bounded by a constant C. Think e.g. of a function approaching a line asymptotically.
The total overhead is not so different from past schedulers, the difference is in the distribution. Before, you'd have a good case where next task is scheduled = O(1), and a bad case where you need to recalculate the schedule table = O(n).
Now, that O(n) job has been distributed out to the context switches, and because it is then distributed over n tasks, it is now O(1).
The power lies in its bound - you can now be assured that no matter how many processes you start, it'll never take longer than C to switch tasks.
Even if you're running very few tasks, the difference should be very noticable. It doesn't matter if the desktop is incredibly responsive 99% of the time, trust me you'll notice the 1% of the time when you caught it at a bad moment.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Whether it is KDE or Gnome, one thing about Linux desktops is their clunkiness. Try running one on a less-than-2GHz-512-megs-ram computer (where Windows will run just fine BTW). You open a menu - CLUNK - tab to another window CLUNK - don't even think about opening an Office application. There is a noticeable lack of response. So I don't know why KDE and Gnome are so great, because it would seem pretty clear that in the area of user usability where desktops should be strong, they are weaker than windows. (Cooler, perhaps, though, maybe with more potential. Hopefully the new scheduling stuff that the guy is talking about will fix this... ). OTOH there is an excellent and quick desktop called Windowmaker that kicks ass - it is extrememly simple and fast, and faster than Windows, and it looks really cool, and has all the keyboard shortcuts anyone would want. In fact its even easier to use than Gnome or KDE with their huge menu trees of widgets. I think this is the way to go for Linux - if some minor tweaks were added to the configuration apps it could also have all the user friendliness you'd want. But, for a very secure, unix-based OS that has all the glitz and widgets that Windows is supposed to have, you can't get much better than Macs OSX - so why try to copy them? For a hacky OS like linux the minimal yet very customizable Windowmaker is the way to go. With KDE or Gnome you are just bloating the code. Still, all those KDE/Gnome games are pretty neat...
Did anyone else read it "Ars Technica Interviews Robot Lore" and get excited? Now that would kick Data into having emotions, instant jealousy.
Damn my slashdot-dyslexia.
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
HAL, D-BUS, and udev seem really neat, but they also seem like they are core improvements that belong at a lower level than GNOME (being a graphical desktop environment)... i.e. maybe not quite in the kernel, but right above it... does anyone know if they are being developed generically so that they may easily be used at the console (non-X) level, independent of which graphical environment is being used?
It worries me that so many fundamental systems are implemented in each graphical environment independently... IIRC, this extends to simple things like vfs, trash, cut/paste, etc.
I am very much a linux newbie, so I'd appreciate any insight. Are my concerns unfounded?