Slashdot Mirror
Kernel Changes Draw Concern
Saeed al-Sahaf writes "Is the Linux kernel becoming fat and unstable? Computer Associates seems to think so. Sam Greenblatt, a senior vice president at Computer Associates, said the kernel is 'getting fatter. We are not interested in the game drivers and music drivers that are being added to the kernel. We are interested in a more stable kernel.' There continues to be a huge debate over what technology to fold into the Linux kernel, and Andrew Morton, the current maintainer of the Linux 2.6 kernel, expands on these subjects in this article at eWeek."
Members of the open-source community are expressing concern over rapid feature changes in the Linux 2.6 kernel, which they say are too focused on the desktop and could make the kernel too large.
"We are not interested in the game drivers and music drivers that are being added to the kernel. We are interested in a more stable kernel."
If you don't want it, don't compile it in. Thats the best part about having the kernel opened and so easy to manipulate. With the GUI available for modifying the kernel as well as a detailed set of instructions built right in, anyone can sit there and remove support for the latest gaming joystick if they so choose to. No one is making you keep it. If the kernel didn't have the option of supporting it, or if they discontinue the building of, then Linux will never be ready for the desktop. Just because Morton or Linus decides to add/accept support for the desktop community doesn't mean that the kernel won't be any more stable. Who is to say that adding gaming support took time away from stabilizing the kernel? If I'm strictly a game hardware designer and send my contribution to support the latest device does not mean that I could have spent my time improving the kernel. I may not be comfortable doing that. In other words, maybe I can't stabilize the kernel but I can write new drivers for it. And if I spend my time doing that it doesn't mean that I take time away from those improving and stabilizing the kernel.
The part that really caught me off guard is the inclusion of the Xen virtualization technology. Big changes are coming to the kernel that are really going to improve Linux and its functionality in the buisness and home world.
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
Isn't that why you compile your own kernel?
FP?
Rick B.
Bullcrap. Who likes installing zillions of extra drivers when updating the kernel?!
And about "fatter": I don't get it. You will probably use ONE sound driver, ONE (or perhaps two) network drivers, etc. Just the fact that the *amount* of drivers is gettling bigger, does not mean the kernel "is getting fatter".
-- The Online Photo Editor - http://www.phixr.com
I worked for a UNIX computer mfg in the late 80's. Even then there were arguments about kernel-bloat.
What would be cool is if the linux distros had default kernel options, much the way some of the majors have Workstation, Server, etc... that would adjust the kernel based on how the machine was being used.
Yes, I know one can reconfigure the kernel by one's self, but it then requires personal care and feeding for patches, upgrades, etc... It becomes one more thing one has to do. Personally, unless I really need it, I'm not goign to bother... too much of a PITA
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I'm perfectly content with compiling a kernel to suit my own needs, however many distros aimed at newbies tend to go for the "support every device possible" approach for a default install. For example, I recently installed mandrake on a machine for a friend (simple default install) to find it loading support for pcmcia, bluetooth, and many other completely unnecessary modules and services. What newbie knows how to disable services or build a more customized kernel? To be fair, this is not a problem with the official kernel source but with the way many distros make use of its capabilities.
I don't know what to think about this. On one hand, I used to brag about how Linux never ever crashed on me (not ONCE), despite my heavily tinkering with it. This was, I think, way back in the 2.0 days. Ever since, with a few generations of kernels, I had to eat those words far too often.
I really miss the days when I could run on a P166 with 32 MB of RAM, and KDE ran not too badly (as long as you don't try to open Netscape or StarOffice). I don't think this kind of performance is attainable at all anymore.
But on the other hand, I'd be loth to run a kernel that didn't at least support USB! I love having ALSA instead of the old mishmash of sound drivers. Ext3 was a relief. I must say that for me at least ip[tables|filter|chains] was confusing, but I trust that the best choices were made... Going back to a kernel that didn't have those features would be simply unnaceptable.
Has the kernel reached a level of complexity where the ol'time stability isn't likely to happen anymore? We just need to react with patches, just like the other OSs out there?
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
saying "just don't compile the options you don't want."
Problem is, that doesn't affect the main problem, which is that 3 million lines of options code is a LOT harder to keep bug free among all the different combinations than 1 million loc.
All bugs may be shallow given enough eyeballs, but the difficulty of debugging the linux codebase may well be increasing faster than the number of eyeballs.
Of course, you conveniently ignored the "2.6.10 is looking much better" part as well as the fact that we are at 2.6.11.7 by now (which is incidentally rock-solid over here). I also seem to have heard a thing or two about FreeBSD 5.x problems and that many are sticking to 4.x for that reason. As fir Apple, they finally fixed a well-known, trivial root exploit last week which was discovered back in fscking January! Try again.
Because it may encourage people to just go to a commercial alternative. If you tell a company "We don't care about feature X, if you want feature X, hire a dev and code it yourself," they may do an analysis on it and determine you know what? It would cost us $50,000 to have a contractor develop this whereas we could buy a commercial solution that does what we want for $10,000.
This is espically true for companies who's core bussiness isn't IT or engineering or the like. If a company just uses computers as a means to an end and they don't really have a tech staff, it can be expensive, difficult and risky to contract someone to do the development they need. Better to just get a commercial solution.
I'm not saying this means OSS devs need to jump up and meet every request from every person that whines, that's clearly impossible. However I find that the OSS community in general is way to fast to say "It's open, if you want the feature, write it yourself!" Rather the merit of the request should be weighed, it may be worth your while to work on. If it's not, then you should give reasoning as to why not, and not just say "Do it yourself."
You need a license for the host OS, and a license for the hosted OS. It's also having to provide fake hardware.
With Xen, maybe it's not that extreme. With the same OS inside and out, and it knowing about itself, it might not be running two copies at all, acting like a really extreme version of chroot instead. Hence the licencing being better.
And it would seem to be a lot saner. I mean, think about disk files. With VMWare, VMWare takes the file, fakes a device from it, and Linux accesses the device, but that's rather goofy when you think about it, because Linux can already mount files. With kernel support, the host kernel could let the hosted OS have direct disk access to that file, and only that file.
In the Linux kernel, there are a lot of 'loopback' and 'fake devices' concepts like that. There's the loopback mounter, there's SCSI emulation, there's fake network devices, there's the fake PS/2 mouse in /dev/input/mice, there's all sorts of pretend hardware. With Linux-on-Linux support in the kernel, that fake hardware could trivially turn into 'real' hardware for a hosted machine, where the hosted kernel know it's accessing something fake, and the host kernel just needs to restrict access.
Hopefully this will be extendable enough that the 'devices' the hosted kernel use can be shared with Linux-on-other-platforms, like coLinux on Windows. And the devices exposed to the hosted machine could be exposed to other emulators.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Can be safely ignored as it is likely a lie. Please note this quote from an article at Red Herring:
Last April, CA restated $2.2 billion in sales that it had improperly reported. Chairman and CEO Sanjay Kumar stepped down, and three CA executives pleaded guilty to fraud. In September, Mr. Kumar was indicted for securities fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice in connection with accounting practices while he was CEO of CA. The company has also footed a $225-million restitution fund for shareholders.
This extraordinary mendacity and outright fraud when coupled with a long history of predatory business practices that would make Bill Gates blush means I will totally ignore anything anyone associated with CA ever says, never buy their products, point out thier failings to anyone who will listen and advise others to do the same.
So far I've heard nobody say the 2.6 kernel is in FACT unstable because of x, y, z drivers or subsystems.
I'll say it: the 2.6 kernel is unstable on x86_64 platforms with USB 2.0 mass storeage devices. There are bug reports everywhere. The response? "It's fixed." The reality? The system locks up like Fort Knox whenever it's booted with a USB 2.0 mass storeage device attached.
The linux-tiny patchset is your friend here. Using it, I've gotten a relatively full-featured kernel booting on x86 weighing in at under 800K... and that's without doing any agressive trimming, and without module support. According to his OLS 2004 presentation, Mackall has achieved a linux 2.6 kernel weighing in at a mere 363K, and others have reportedly managed a kernel as small as 191K.
Some of the linux-tiny ideas have been making their way into the mainline kernel, so this isn't just a special-purpose patchset - it's really a proving ground for kernel size minimization techniques.
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9