Slashdot Mirror
New Tool to Track Kernel Testing Time
mu22le writes "Andrea Arcangeli has created a new tool, 'klive', to automatically track the amount of testing that each kernel gets before release. According to Kernel Traffic "There was some discussion [on making it a kernel config option] that public perception might put this in the "spyware" category", but still the ability to track a kernel usage and reliability would be valuable to both developers and users."
If I turn on my computer and don't touch it for a year, it will have excellent uptime, but it doesn't really test very much. Same too, if I just start up Apache and let it do its thing.
So? The theoretical number of users that will be doing that sort of operation should be outnumbered by those that use it for "normal, day to day operations".
In the end it would even itself out.
If they make the kernel option totally opt-in, which is the right way to go, most people won't use it and only power-users will enable the function which will end up with the results you mentioned (or will it?)
An interesting debate but at least they are willing to 100% respect the rights of their users.
Microsoft probably puts their stuff through more testing than anybody. And it's needed -- even with all that testing, things slip through. (I'll skip talking about why there's so many bugs ... others can do that.)
The Linux kernel is much smaller than Windows. Far less testing is needed, though of course some testing is still a good idea.
And I know this is unrelated, but the article submission talks about Spyware? Well, not all Spyware is bad. Just because software reports home, that doesn't make it evil. It's only evil if it does this without your knowledge and consent. (And putting this into a huge legal click-through doesn't really count.)
An example of `good' spyware would be the Google Toolbar. Yes, it can contact google if configured to do so, but at least 1) this provides some benefit to you, and 2) google makes it very clear what it's doing, not burying it in some click-through legal agreement and 3) you can easily turn it off if desired.
Keeping this as an external script is definitely the way forward. As pointed out, having a kernel flag and especially having the possibility of it defaulting to YES is a step too far IMHO.
This is definitely a very useful system however, and I for one would very much like to see something similar for distributions (ie. not just the kernel, but the whole damn caboodle).
Burns: We're building a casino!
McAllister: Arrr. Give me 5 minutes.
Microsoft DOES test its products. I recall Win95 having "the largest beta-testing stage in history".
Anyway, the security failures in WinXP are not due to lack of testing, but because of poor design decisions. Besides, security failures can't be detected by common beta-testing, but by heavy security audits (Not that I don't hate MS policies, I do, but there was no point in your comment).
In summary, your post wasn't informative, interesting, or insightful. Not even funny.
You're right on all counts, but think of the anti-FUD capabilities, here. There is a really cool pseudo-logical argument to make quite quickly if this tool comes into heavy use:
1. Everyone who uses linux is a complete nerd. (Common knowledge, doesn't even HAVE to be true)
2. Nerds know lots about computers and how to keep them working.
3. Nerds have run linux for X hours, and all these hours have been pretty hardcore QA time.
4. All this time has been documented.
5. Microsoft won't tell you how much testing time they put into their software.
6. Microsoft can't afford as many dedicated and intelligent testers as the OSS community has - these sysadmins for multinational companies would charge them an arm and a leg for their time.
Therefore,
7. Linux software is better tested than Microsoft software ever will be.
8. Pro... Nah, I don't need to go that far. Let's just say, "Live a less frustrating life," which is more than simply profiting.
My little site.
"In the end it would even itself out."
That doesn't make it useful. So what if 400 hours is spent testing 10% of the kernel interfaces? What about the other 90%. There is no accountability of the features that are tested and not tested.
Time tested is about as useful as the number of votes for on-line polls.
And I don't think it could be thought of as spyware.
Spyware is supposed to be unknowingly reporting information about you, whether it was mistakenly installed by you or it crept in from somewhere else.
The typical Linux user won't think it's spyware, no, but those working to move Linux towards a larger market want to be certain that newer users don't ever confuse the two.
Unfortunately, this *could* be confused with Spyware -- especially after a cute little Microsoft funded "research" item gets posted to ZDnet or news.com.com.
Linux Kernel Includes Spyware Reporting Your Usage Habits!
And don't think for one second that any backpedaling by the kernel gurus could outsmart the Microsoft FUD team.
I think this is a fine idea - tracking and all - and I've been running klive since I saw it on kernel trap last week - however, I think that some people are correct when they question how uptime counts as reliability. It doesn't - in the sense of it testing load and the like - but it does because it takes a whole lot of kernel reliability/stability for it to boot in the first place, and it takes a bit for it to just gain uptime.
Personally, I would like to see it as an option in the kernel - but I'd like it to be off by default. I'd the statistics to be available to everyone (*NOT* IP addresses, hostnames, etc) but rather version, compiler, memory and load.
While I'm fine with just running some guys software for now, it's gonna turn into a huge mess . What happens if there's a bug? How's he gonna get it distributed to everyone? What if they want to track something else?
You know, I don't know what universe these folk are living in, but this "python-twisted" package or whatever it is called is absolutely NOT included in every Linux distribution.
Slackware - oldest living Linux distribution - does NOT have this twisted thing in it.
You would think that the developers would use a standard programming language - like C - for something like this...(gr&d)
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
Linux is not Windows