Slashdot Mirror
Talking With 2.0 Kernel Maintainer David Weinehall
Jeremy Andrews writes "While the recently released 2.6 Linux kernel is all the rage these days, the much older 2.0 kernel is still alive and kicking. KernelTrap has interviewed David Weinehall, the maintainer of the 2.0 Linux kernel. David became the 2.0 maintainer in December of 1999, after Alan Cox moved on to work full time on the 2.2 kernel. In this interview David talks about what's involved in maintaining the 2.0 kernel, who uses it, when we can expect the impending release of 2.0.40, why you should upgrade (if you're still running 2.0.39), and more."
It's like the people that still use Windows 95, sure it's not as new and flashy, but it still runs on the crappy hardware from years ago... And sometimes, that's all you need.
Isn't it great? One of the best things with free software is that anyone is free to maintain and support it for as long as they wish. Compare to say, NT 4.0, which is perfectly capable for some tasks, but users are forced to switch because MS cuts support (read: no more security updates.)
.: Max Romantschuk
What would you rather have - some old NT kernel that nobody even thinks about or 2.2 linux kernel actively updated for security issues, even if it is a 14 year old?
I rest my case.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Even if what you say is true, theres no reason why a proprietary solution makes more sense. If I'm putting the life in the hands of a computer, I damn well want to be able to know about every piece of code that computer is running.
But really, Linux isn't a consumer OS. Linux is a kernel frequently used in consumer OSes. This means its been tested by a _lot_ of people, and is that much more stable as a result. There is nothing particularly consumerish about the kernel itself (certainly not the 2.0 kernel), and aerospace companies can easily just configure without consumer-oriented features.
I fail to see why you think open source software is somehow less able to protect human life than proprietary software.
Sorry, no dice there. Win98 had no more stability and was all but Win95b with the bloat of the active desktop required . Win98 for free would be a curse to anyone still running Win95. I hated it when I "upgraded" to Win98 on my p120 because every clock cycle mattered. I went back to Daddy Blue Screen because at least he was faster.
When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
How come that such a skilled person with enough references can't find a job?
A consumer OS (linux is a consumer OS, BTW) should NOT be controlling fly-by-wire... human life is at risk.
So a non-consumer OS should be used?
Here is an example of custom software causing a crash.
With aircraft systems becopming more and more complex, it does give one pause as to what could happen if there was a "blue screen" or "kernal panic".
IMHO, it doesn't matter what software is used. If it is engineered poorly, it will perform poorly. One would hope that any critical system that relies on software would "fail gracefully", but with budget pressures on a project anything can happen.
A well-tested "consumer" OS can be a lot better than completely untested custom software.
Poor software, like poor concrete, will crumble, no matter where it comes from.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
These things can actually be good things for a programmer though.. Most of the best programmers I know, and we're talking real code wizards here, lack Comp Sci degrees, aren't very social, and have big egos amongst their type.. but they do the work and don't complain.
I disagree. That type of programmer is the kind who has a hard time doing things any other way than his way. If management says "this NEEDS to be done this way", he's the one saying "that's stupid because I wouldn't do it that way. Therefore, no one else would do it that way." You tend to see this attitude a lot on Slashdot, usually when someone points out something Linux can't do but Windows can. To which, the Linux zealot/anti-social programmer will reply: "so what? That's stupid. No one would want to do that anyway."
These people are not necessarily the best people to have on a team.