Slashdot Mirror
The 2.7 Kernel: Back To The Future For Linux
Anonymous Coward writes "Now that the Linux 2.6 kernel has been released and is being worked into distributions, many in the open-source community are turning their attention to the next development and test kernel, known as the 2.7 tree. To get an early glimpse at some of the thinking going into the next kernel, key vendors that aid in shaping the Linux kernel helped eWEEK last week put together a long-range wish list for 2.7."
I go to read about the 2.7 Linux Kernel and I get an advertisement telling me that Linux costs 11%-22% more on average in 4 out of 5 workload scenarios... I immediately lost interest in the 2.7 kernel and just got angry at Microsoft.
So that is their plan... the whole Yoda "hate blinds" plot... darn they're good.
that they remove all the SCO code this time. Maybe then it will fit on a floppy again.
What?
There is nothing specific about anything. What a useless article. You can say you want a milkshake with your 2.7 kernel and it be just as valid as the things mentioned.
Is just great driver compatability. That seems like the primary hurdle that can really keep people out, as well as a large area that is easily neglected in a more server-oriented mindset (especially in terms of user peripherals).
I have always felt that Linux is a nice operating system (for hobbyists and
geeks), but there are some areas where it is seriously lacking, especially when
compared to its main competitor, Microsoft? Windows?.
* File sharing. Windows has long been superior when it comes to making large
amounts of files available to third parties. Even early versions of Windows
automatically detected and made available all directories thanks to the built in
NetBIOS-powered file sharing support. But Microsoft has realized that this
technology is inherently limited and has added even better file sharing support
to its Windows XP operating system. "Universal Plug an Play" [slashdot.org] will
make it possible to literally access any file, from any device! I think
universal file sharing support needs to be built into the Linux kernel soon.
* Intelligent agents. With innovations like Clippy, the talking paperclip
[dmu.ac.uk] and Microsoft Bob, Microsoft has always tried to make life easier
for its customers. With Outlook and Outlook Express, Microsoft has built a
framework for developers to create even smarter agents. Especially popular
agents include "Sircam", which automatically asks the users' friends for advice
on files he is working on and the "Hybris" agent, which is a self-replicating
copy of a humorous take on "Snow-White and the Seven Dwarves" (the real story!).
Microsoft is working on expanding this P2P technology to its web servers. This
project is still in the beta stage, thus the name "Code Red". The next versions
will be called "Code Yellow" and "Code Green".
* Version numbers. Linux has real naming problems. What's the difference
between a 2.4.19 and a 2.2.17 kernel anyway? And what's with those odd and even
numbers? Microsoft has always had clear and sophisticated naming/versioning
policies. For example, Windows 95 was named Windows 95 because it was released
in 1995. Windows 98 was released three years later, and so on. Windows XP
brought a whole new "experience" to the user, therefore the name. I suggest that
the next Linux kernel releases be called Linux 03, Linux 04, Linux 04.5 (OSR1),
Linux 04.7B (OSR2 SP4 OEM), Linux 2005 and Linux VD (Valentine's Day edition).
Furthermore, remember how Microsoft named every upcoming version of Windows
after some Egyptian city? Cairo, Chicago and so on. I think that the development
kernels should be named after Spanish cities to celebrate Linux' Spanish
origins. Linux Milano or Linux Rome anyone?
* Multi-User Support. This has always been one of Microsoft's strong sides,
especially in the Windows 95/98 variants, where passwords were completely
unnecessary. Microsoft has made the right decision by not bothering the user
with a distinction between "normal" and "root" users too much -- practice has
shown that average users can be trusted to act responsibly and in full awareness
of the potential consequences of their actions. After all, if your operating
system doesn't trust you, why should you trust it? (To be fair, Linux is making
some progress here with the Lindows [lindows.com] distribution, where users are
always running as root.)
With Windows XP, Microsoft has again improved multi-user support. Not only
does Windows XP come with a large library of user pictures that are displayed on
the login screen, such as a guitar and a flower, it also has "quick user
change". This makes it possible to login as a different user with a simple
keyboard shortcut, and the good news is: programs from the old user keep running
in the background! Beat that, Linux!
* Programmability. Microsoft has always been known for making computer
machine power accessible to end users. The operating system comes with many
helpful tools such as VBScript, a programming language especially useful for
developing intelligent agents as mentioned above, and QBASIC, a truly innovative
"hacker" tool that makes it pos
I saw something about clustering support. Not much of a list. There's gotta be more than that. "Focusing on the desktop" does not make a list...it's too vague. Any specifics?
Then again, I suppose you're not going to get very specific on an e-week article.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all excited about 2.6 making the distros and then hearing about what awesome stuff they'll have on 2.7 -- but this article really just leaves me hanging.
After a frustrating weekend trying to get a High Point SATA card working in my Linux server, I'm putting better SATA support on the top my my wish list!
"We have nothing in common, your attitude annoys me, and your political views are appalling."
With so many people with their own agendas pushing and pulling at the kernel, and Linus being the steadfast leader he is, I can't help but think Linux may be headed for a fork in the not so distant future. Unless there is a way to make the kernel truly enterprise class as well as a responsive, low latency desktop system and a near real time embedded platform all at the same time.
I'm amazed (in the good way) the kernel devs have made it as versatile as they have to this point. Hats off to them and here's to hoping they can keep it up.
"Watch your cornhole, bud."
That's still the idea. When they say "putting new stuff in the kernel," they really mean "new options that you *can* compile into the kernel." Don't like Ham radio support in your kernel? Don't compile it in. Same for multiprocessor support, or virtualization support, or whatever the hell they throw in that you happen not to want.
That's the beauty. Now - you *are* compiling your own kernels, right? Cuz if you blindly use whatever default kernel RedHat or whoever throws at you, that's not so good maybe. ;)
That was quoted from an Oracle Exec. let's not get ahead of ourselves. I'm not sure how 2.6 is considered a "server" release. The Kernel is the kernel. 2.6 will be the default kernel on desktop installs in a few months I'm sure.
A lot of the patches in 2.6 benefit both the server and desktop camps equally. The scheduler and VM improvments and XFS. I believe RedHat backports those patches to the 2.4 kernel for the ES/AS/WS versions.
If you haven't tried 2.6 yet, you really should. I noticed a considerable increase in X response time with it.
Will there be support for my orbiting brain lasers in the 2.7 series?
I would like to see less things in the 2.7 kernel than in the 2.6 kernel. Getting device drivers, network drivers, etc, out of the kernel core and into modules was a step forward, but I think the next step forward would be to get these things out of the kernel entirely, and into userland. That would give Linux a huge advantage over Microsoft Windows. Installing and un-installing device drivers would become much easier for users. Manufacturers would like this too because then there would be less concern about GPL and device drivers. It would be easier to release binary-only drivers.
That article was amazingly content-free.
If you haven't tried 2.6 yet, you really should. I noticed a considerable increase in X response time with it.
:P
I hope you didn't mean what you wrote.
From a MS ad embeeded in the article:
"Windows Server 2003 offers a savings of 11-22% over Linux in 4 out of 5 workplace scenarios."
From the text of the article:
"The company said in a 2001 Securities and Exchange Commission filing that Linux cut its technology expenses by $16 million, or 25 percent."
Whatever it is I'm complaining about, I'm sure the Republicans did it. This is
This may come off as overly aggressive, and for that I apologize in advance, but people who haven't adminstrated *nix boxes in large-scale deployments often fail to recognize that there's a delibrate method behind the file system.
/bin, /usr/bin, and /usr/local/bin may seem trivial to you as a user, but from an administrative vantage point, they are very important.
/bin, /sbin, and /lib. That means that all tools necessary for fixing the system must be there including all kernel modules and shared libraries. It must also be possible for this device to be completely read-only, possibly even residing in firmware. Installing an application in /bin while its companion libraries are on /usr/lib would be folly since the /usr partition may be completely inaccessible. You may notice that some distributions install a stripped-down, statically-linked version of vi in /bin and a full-featured, shared-library version in /usr/bin. Now you know why.
/lib, the remaining partitions can be mounted. On a single-user machine, the /usr directory may be on the same partition as root. Often times it has its own partition. But for large-scale deployments, the entire /usr partition may be on a network share. It may also be on a CDROM. Installing software to /usr may be impossible or require a site-wide change. Secondly, it won't do to have software trying to write data to this partition, so programs and data are always separated. All data goes to /var which is normally a machine-specific mount. Also, a diskless machine may mount /var on a ram disk.
/usr/local directory. If /usr is read-only, /usr/local is mounted to a separate writeable volume. All software not packaged by the distributor or site administrator belongs in /usr/local if it's machine-wide and in the user's home directory if not. Other conventions exist, including the use of /opt, but that's a site policy issue.
/bin, /usr/bin, or /usr/local/bin. Libraries go to the equivalent lib directory. Header files to the equivalent include directory. Manual pages to man. Cross-application data to share. All application data goes to /var including log files and databases. All temporary files go to /tmp. If you follow these rules, there's no end to the configurations you can create. Violate any single rule and you have a machine that cannot be recovered, applications that cannot be shared site-wide, machine-wide, or between users, and data that cannot be conveniently backed up. Sorta like Windows.
/usr/software/netscape won't help if the installer is looking for /usr/software/mozilla. This class of problem has been solved many times over with package configuration files and scripts. The responsibility is mainly that of the distribution maintainers to facilitate this. If it's not happening for your distro, get satisfaction, or move to a distro that cares.
Each one of those directories has a very distinct purpose; it didn't happen that way by accident. The difference between
In single user mode with an ailing system, the most you may successfully get booted is the root partition. You have at your disposal only
Once booted and all the necessary kernel modules are loaded from
To address software installed on individual machines, we use the
So that's that. Given any package, it is a simple matter to determine if its executables go to
You specifically address the issue of plug-ins, but even having an application located at
That said, the browser plug-in issue annoys me, too.
-Hope
There used to be a cluster fs for windows called Mango - but that's now obsolete thanks to Win2003, which clusters. But Linux can't access that as far as I know. So there is a middleman - Coda. Coda is a clustered file system for use with WinNt/Win95/Linux and is already in the kernel as far as I know. Just clearing up the hole that appears to be at the bottom of the article (really... it's been in since 2.4!)