Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Tool to Track Kernel Testing Time

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the handy-opt-in-software dept.

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."

98 comments

  1. Applicable to microsoft windows? by guildsolutions · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    oh wait.. they dont test anything.. Nvm.

    1. Re:Applicable to microsoft windows? by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      Sure they do... that's what trade expo's are for, right?

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    2. Re:Applicable to microsoft windows? by HG+Slashdot · · Score: 0

      ...besides our patience...

      --
      j0b.org - A famous domain name for sale
    3. Re:Applicable to microsoft windows? by dougmc · · Score: 2, Insightful
      oh wait.. they dont test anything.. Nvm.
      I realize that you're trying to be funny, but ...

      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.

    4. Re:Applicable to microsoft windows? by guildsolutions · · Score: 1

      Some of the code in windows XP hasnt even been seen by a human being for years upon years. From my perspective, a significant amount of exploits come from services or 'features' that are never used for anything. I several years for working at a college, 200+ PC's under my belt at any specfic time I find that our biggest problem with bugs, come from places that we hardly touch. Alas, Microsoft has admited that it focused more upon putting features into its products and pushing it out the door in a nice boxed product moreso than security. They only clammored about how they are focusing on security of recent when consumers started getting wise and yelling at the top of there lungs for microsoft to fix there products.

    5. Re:Applicable to microsoft windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Microsoft probably puts their stuff through more testing than anybody.

      Actually, they most certainly don't. Microsoft's target market (desktops) have always been an area where time-to-market has been more important than perfection.

      Indeed, I would say that Microsooft's single strongest competitive advantage is that they were the first company to correctly balance time-to-market against testing and quality. The bottom line is that most businesses really don't care (as proven by their purchase history) about viruses if they can get colorful shaded borders around windows.

      Other companies (all the unix vendors, apple, etc) that wasted years on testing before releasing were really showing a very poor understanding of their market.

    6. Re:Applicable to microsoft windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      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.)

      That isn't really much of a statement ("probably"). Given the 'quality' of quite a few Microsoft products, they obviously haven't been tested thoroughly enough.

      The Linux kernel is much smaller than Windows. Far less testing is needed, though of course some testing is still a good idea.

      Linux is a monolithic kernel with practically all its drivers (apart from VGA drivers) built in, and the WinNT kernel is a microkernel with most drivers made by third parties. You really, really cannot compare the two that easily.

    7. Re:Applicable to microsoft windows? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      Some of the code in windows XP hasnt even been seen by a human being for years upon years.
      Commercial software testing rarely involves looking directly at the code. Instead, it tends to involve going through scripts where you do something known and looking for a known result, and if you don't get the result, you log that as a defect, which the developers then investigate.

      The scripts involved generally come from previously found and corrected defects (making sure they don't come back) and possibly from things that the developers think might break. And a large part of it comes from what somebody thinks somebody might do with the software. In any event, much of it's usually heavily scripted so that nothing is left out, though it's very difficult to get a script going that tests everything (and in fact, it's probably impossible for something as complex as Windows.)

      And then there's beta programs, where they give the unfinished package to end users who are willing to beta test, and the users are asked to submit bug reports. But this is generally much less formal, and it seems to me that most users don't submit bug reports at all (as long as they can work around the bugs found), though there are some that will report every little thing (and these users are great for making beta programs work.)

      (Right or wrong, that's generally the way how it's done. Code reviews are another matter entirely.)

      As for open source software, they generally skip the whole scripted human run test suite, though many software packages do provide a test suite that does much of the same thing automatically. (`make test' is a wonderful thing when done properly ...)

      Of course, huge packages like Windows or Office are the exception rather than the rule, and these are the sorts of things that really need a scripted, human run testing phase. Redhat Linux (the entire package) and OpenOffice may get similar treatments, but most smaller packages don't.

      Alas, Microsoft has admited that it focused more upon putting features into its products and pushing it out the door in a nice boxed product moreso than security.
      That may be true (or may not. I'd really love to see a citation from Microsoft where they claim that they focus more on adding features than security. That just doesn't sound like the sort of thing that PR would let them say, even if it's true.)

      In any event, the number of developers and testers and such assigned to Windows and Office is huge, probably larger than the entire staffs of most software companies. A small percentage of those people are probably assigned to doing product testing, probably a similar percentage as is assigned to similar jobs in other software companies. But since the entire team is so large, more testing is likely to be done. (Now, perhaps far more testing is needed, but that's not what I'm talking about here.)

      Really, the only software packages that I can think of that might get more formal testing than Windows and Office might be something like Oracle.

    8. Re:Applicable to microsoft windows? by arkanes · · Score: 1

      And yet, Microsofts testing procedures still suck. I know this because Windows still ships with bugs that would have been caught by basic static analysis programs, of the kind that I know for a fact Microsoft has and uses. Granted that Windows is massive, but really, they've had what, 3 years now since they announced their new dedication to security? They could have done a total code audit of the Windows source in that time, including ensuring that it passed static analysis tools. This is totally aside from classic test suites - something that I am not convinced Microsoft uses, at least not in the Windows kernel and Win32 API.

    9. Re:Applicable to microsoft windows? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      Granted that Windows is massive, but really, they've had what, 3 years now since they announced their new dedication to security?
      Most software testing is not done for security. It's done checking for functionality, making sure that things work as they should.

      And the post that I was replying to simply said ` oh wait.. they dont test anything..' which is patently incorrect. (Of course, the post has also been modded -1, which is probably exactly where it belongs.)

      I'm not saying this is the way it should be, only that it's the way it is. And it does make sense ... people don't buy Windows because it's secure. They buy it because it's what they know, it runs their software, and it does what they want. Security is an after-thought to most people, especially the sort who uses Windows.

      They could have done a total code audit of the Windows source in that time, including ensuring that it passed static analysis tools.
      Perhaps, but that's not what I'm talking about. They may not be testing what needs testing, but it seems quite likely that Microsoft spends more time testing something about their product than anybody else does, if only because of their size and the breadth of their products.
    10. Re:Applicable to microsoft windows? by guildsolutions · · Score: 1
      • Most software testing is not done for security. It's done checking for functionality, making sure that things work as they should.


      Your obvoiusly not a software developer then are you? In development of my web-based applications I scrutinize and TRY to physically break everything I can break in my webaps. Including giving bonuses to those who test for me, who can find security flaws and reproduce them. Security testing is major in my productions, and always should be. I am positive that it is for Apple's OS X.

    11. Re:Applicable to microsoft windows? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      Most software testing is not done for security. It's done checking for functionality, making sure that things work as they should.
      In development of my web-based applications I scrutinize and TRY to physically break everything I can break in my webaps.
      You haven't disproven my point. You've only given one anecdotal piece of evidence that somebody checks for security flaws. You haven't even shown me that you personally spend more time checking for security flaws than anything else (though I don't doubt that you do. But if so, you're the exception rather than the rule.)

      I suspect that Microsoft checks for security issues too. But I also suspect that this is less than 50% of their total testing. I did not say `software testing is not done for security'. I said `Most software testing is not done for security', and I believe this statement to be accurate.

      Perhaps I was a little more vague that I should have been, but ultimately it depends on the application. Some will get more security-specific testing than others, but I suspect that overall (painting all of software testing with a very broad brush here) security-specific testing is a good deal less than 50% of all software testing done.

      In the web based applications that I've written, security has always been a prime consideration. However, even then, I've probably spent more time verifying that things work rather than verifying that they work securely. To make sure things are secure, I've concentrated more on the code, making sure I don't trust the user's input until it's been validated/scrubbed, things like that. But that's not really `testing', that's more development. (And yes, I do some testing that things work securely afterwards, trying to break things, but not as much time as I spend making sure that things work correctly. Security is important, but so is functionality.)

      And any sort of network or web application is a special case, requiring extra special attention to security. (Though one would certainly argue that a network aware OS like Windows should pay similar attention to security, and it's relatively clear that Microsoft does not.)

      Security testing is major in my productions, and always should be.
      Good for you. But I never said it shouldn't be or isn't `major'.
      I am positive that it is for Apple's OS X.
      Ok, but in order for my statement to be inaccurate in the case of OS X, you'd have to show that over 50% of their testing is looking specifically for security related issues. I don't doubt that security is important to them, but I suspect that security checking doesn't take most of their testing time.

      You know, I spend way too much time defending statements on /. that really ought to be obvious. I should stop wasting my time -- I'm probably not convincing anybody, and I'm not even really entertaining myself.

  2. Don't forget... by SCO$699FeeTroll · · Score: -1

    ...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

    1. Re:Don't forget... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Failed the FP you have - yoda

  3. ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://www.kerneltraffic.org.nyud.net:8090/kernel- traffic/latest.html#6
    http://klive.cpushare.com.nyud.net:8090/

    1. Re:ugh by John+Nowak · · Score: 1

      Please, stop with this already.

  4. What are they testing? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They seem to be taking system stats and system uptimes and presenting it in a hard to understand table. Is that tracking testing?

    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.

    Testing is a very important part of any development cycle and testing metrics are very useful in determining the quality of the delivered product. However, I've never heard of "testing time" used as a metric. Maybe "coverage" or "bugs over time", but the amount of time itself is never really a concern.

    From what I've seen of the Linux kernel (just downloading the source from kernel.org and browsing through it), there doesn't seem to be much in the way of actual debug code thoughtfully and diligently placed throughout the code. There are a few litterings of debug code here and there, but for the most part, it seems like the developers just expect it to work without error.

    Nothing wrong with that attitude, if reality backs it up. And luckily, with Linux, reality is right there to prove the developers correct.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:What are they testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you get a job ? If you have one, why aren't you doing it instead of always posting the same comment on this board?

    2. Re:What are they testing? by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:What are they testing? by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:What are they testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "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.

    5. Re:What are they testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not testing the kernel, it's logging which kernels are being used. They release testing and pre-release kernels all the time, but have no idea whether they're actually tested by non-kernel developers. They have concerns that the testing kernels are not being tested.

    6. Re:What are they testing? by Metteyya · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Besides "sending" uptime for statistical purposes it also send your kernel config options (AFAIK). Thus, if your average uptime is around 1 hour (and you're not using reboot nor halt) it means some part of your kernel is screwed.

      Having a big amount of submitting computers can help track the cause (that is, kernel config option in conjunction with hardware & software used).

    7. Re:What are they testing? by Taladar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Total number of calls to each kernel function should be more useful.

      --
      Linux is not Windows
    8. Re:What are they testing? by SLi · · Score: 1

      Coverage, hmm. An interesting idea would be distributed code coverage testing.

      But it has two downsides:

      1) At least a code line based coverage system slows the system down considerably
      2) The amount of data to send per computer would probably be quite big.

      Still I think it's an interesting idea. Maybe if it could be manually turned on for code that has got less coverage from other people, or for some non-speed-critical drivers etc...

    9. Re:What are they testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For coverage analysis, you can get gcov from http://ltp.sf.net./

      I have seen some pretty neat coverage analysis charts, showing the parts of the kernel exercised.

    10. Re:What are they testing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really.... the people running RedHat, and probably paying for it in a commercial context, will have very different up times to the home users on Fedora.

    11. Re:What are they testing? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      Cool! I'll have to look at this some more, I only took the briefest of glances at it. I found this diagram to be very illuminating:

      http://ltp.sourceforge.net/images/2.6.8-poster-med ium.jpg

      As someone above mentioned, instrumenting all the code with debug checks would bring the system to a crawl. However, with compiler settings set to Release instead of Debug, it should be possible to give end users an optimized version without any debug code to slow it down.

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
  5. As long as it's an option by duncan · · Score: 1

    That would be the difference between this idea and spyware.

    I don't particularly care if someone is getting anonymous data about my usage of the linux kernel for most of my boxen. It'll help improve the performance with good accurate real world information. However I don't want some sensitive boxen that I am responsible for to output data to any other source for good or ill.

    So if I can chose, I'll be happy.

  6. also on KernelTrap by anandpur · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Tracking Kernel Usage
    http://kerneltrap.org/node/5606

  7. It's always an option. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that what firewalls are for. You have complete control over what packets leave your office/room/basement; since the cable passes through there.

  8. Spyware vs. Trackware by CDMA_Demo · · Score: 1

    If a 3rd party releases a kernel with modifications that allow them to track you without your knowing how nice for their revenue! Imagine redhat releasing a kernel for Fedora that gives feedback to companies on their users' computing habits...If you're doing all this at kernel level it will be too hard to track.

    1. Re:Spyware vs. Trackware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It really wouldn't be hard to track at all. The information is going to be flowing out of one of your computers ports....and the Kernel is open source. People that don't like it will simply uncomment the appropriate lines of code recompile and stick the new kernel on the net for others to download and install. Being open source you actaully have no choice but to give users this option.

      I for one think it is a great idea. I would leave it turned on.

    2. Re:Spyware vs. Trackware by duncan · · Score: 1

      Yes, a sofware company _could_ make a modification and deploy it in the kernel as you say. They could do that now for all you know.

      But the beauty of open source is that you can find out about things like that by looking at the code. Seeing thier compile time options, build the kernel yourself and you would get the same size as they did. If it's different, something is wrong.

      And as soon as a company is discovered doing something like that (and in this community they would be discovered sooner than later) they get a Slashdot/Digg/etc post that blasts them. And let's say for the sake of arguement that it is RH that pulls this stunt. What do you think thier trust levels would be after being found out? How many developers are going to help them to move forward?

  9. Hmmm... by Mondoz · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder if this is similar to the tool used in my microwave to track Kernel popping time.

    --
    /sig
    1. Re:Hmmm... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes it is, and I believe that was where Andrea first got the idea. Kind of like Newton getting whacked on the head with an apple, but not.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Hmmm... by Mondoz · · Score: 1

      Was it wrong to envision someone getting smashed in the head with falling microwave ovens?

      --
      /sig
  10. Userland is the way by 6031769 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Userland is the way by fossa · · Score: 1

      Debian has "popularity contest" which is not a testing tool but it reports to Debian which programs and packages you use (presumably using file atime, thought I haven't looked at it... and I often mount my disks with noatime). This data is intended to be used to determine which packages belong on "disk 1" and which should be bumped to other disks.

  11. Testing is always a problem by SCO+STINKS · · Score: 0

    Where I work we have testing scripts that perform most of our testing. Couldn't most kernel features be tested by scripts or automated processes?

    --
    Reason #32767 not to use VB6: Integers are 2 bytes... Think about it!
    1. Re:Testing is always a problem by nietsch · · Score: 1

      It could and it should. There is litle reason why the kernel can't be accompagnied with a test suite(probably twice it's size). then when you have compiled your kernel (during a long lunch) you start the tests and come back next morning.
      Then you spend the rest of the day figuring out what the tests actually test, and what it means if a particular one fails.

      You will probaly nee a emulator like bochs to emulate and manipulate the hardware part, but it should be doable.

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    2. Re:Testing is always a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you betray your complete lack of understanding of whats involved in testing an OS. If its so easy someone would have done it.

    3. Re:Testing is always a problem by nietsch · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between a kernel and an OS, you know? I don't know where you read me suggesting that it was simple or easy. the testing suite will probably exceed the the actual kernel in size twice over. As for if someone has aready made a start: Linux Testing Project.

      --
      This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
    4. Re:Testing is always a problem by HostGeekZ · · Score: 1

      Ironic reading this. I think it was 2 days ago I ran into that testing project and bookmarked it to read later, but I forgot all about it so this was a perfect reminder:)

  12. Nice troll, but... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Nice troll, but... by arkanes · · Score: 1

      This is not entirely true. Many, many, many Windows security holes (especially the ones a few years old - low hanging fruit) are/were the kind that are especially easy to to find via automated testing. Running lint against the Windows source code would have found a signifigant number of them.

  13. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    What kind of useless statistic is Kernel Testing Time? It looks like uptime to me and that doesn't tell you anything about reliability.

    As for building it into the kernel that would most definitely be spyware! Imagine the ruckus if Microsoft's kernel phoned home! Do you think that it would be different if the Linux kernel was calling Alan Cox at Red Hat?

  14. I think it's a good idea... by Biomechanical · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    An application, or kernel option you flick on like a switch, which you install, and that reports information you know about, to people you understand are going to use that information, can't be called spyware unless it also happened to report how much pr0n you have as well as the kernel's amount of usage.

    I think it would be a neat option to have in the kernel in general. Off by default, all us geeks who want to say "look! here! I'm running Linux!" could turn it on and it could report our uptimes and what kernels we're running.

    We could "stand up and be counted" to show our support for Linux and give the various distributions a rough idea of what we think about them.

    --
    His name is Robert Paulsen...
    1. Re:I think it's a good idea... by ChipMonk · · Score: 1

      Without a sufficient explanation to the user, and the default set to "YES", then it could indeed report information on you, more than you wish to allow.

    2. Re:I think it's a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Is that like the kernal or corn in my poop with the peanuts? or all my first posts?
      Trip Bastard Donkey
      ______
      / rip Bastard Donkey

    3. Re:I think it's a good idea... by garcia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:I think it's a good idea... by travail_jgd · · Score: 1

      That's well and good for everyone who compiles their own kernel.

      I'd wager that the majority of Linux desktop users get binary kernels from their distros. They're not savvy enough to tell the difference, and they've been burned once (MS Windows).

      If it's included as default in a distro, many desktop users won't know how to turn it on/off via /etc/sysctl.conf.

      And IMHO, it sets up the "slippery slope" argument. :(

    5. Re:I think it's a good idea... by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 1
      Exactly.

      And think about if things were backwards:

      New Tool to Track Vista Testing Time

      /. would have a cow if this were not an option and disabled by default. (Actually, /. would probably have a cow no matter what.)

      While a usage reporting tool might be a nice idea, the kernel folks better think long and hard before it's added and enabled by default.

    6. Re:I think it's a good idea... by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1

      There's no reason for an OS kernel to be reporting anything to any third-party, period.

      If the kernel people want to test, they should reinstitute their old development policy, where there was a "testing" kernel & a "production" kernel.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    7. Re:I think it's a good idea... by arodland · · Score: 1

      If it's included in a distro, it shouldn't be one where "testing" is a worry. Therefore, no problem.

  15. vixie cron doesn't like the way it installs... by sednet · · Score: 3, Informative

    if you download and install it as of 10am PST today, its going to try and install a cron job that begins:
    -*/10 * * * * ps x | grep...
    which vixie cron (and presumably others) rejects as invalid. i just changed it to run every 10 minutes like:
    */10 * * * * ps x | grep...
    hth

    --
    about sean dreilinger
  16. Hmmm.... by bomb_number_20 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I didn't know Phil Collins had a son.

    --
    That's ok, Jesus likes me anyway.
    1. Re:Hmmm.... by woah · · Score: 1

      Phil Collins: I'm your father.
      His son: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  17. xp holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    The security holes in XP are due to user stupidity not artificial stupidity.

  18. dupe? by Aperculum · · Score: 1

    I thought there already was an article about klive in slashdot, but I might be wrong too. Already installed it ^-^

    1. Re:dupe? by John+Nowak · · Score: 1

      How could that be possible? It isn't like the editors here just post anything people submit without checking if the article was already posted.

  19. Fine Idea#21 SMP Tue Aug 30 19:54:34 WST 2005 by fimbulvetr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Fine Idea#21 SMP Tue Aug 30 19:54:34 WST 2005 by BJH · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you had a look at the bash script, but all it does it download and run a python-twisted script from cron - which means all a user has to do is re-run the bash script with the --install option and it'll pull down the new version.

    2. Re:Fine Idea#21 SMP Tue Aug 30 19:54:34 WST 2005 by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      I use the klive.tac script and it contains stuff like:

      PUSH_INTERVAL = 60*10 # start with one push every 10 minutes
      PUSH_INTERVAL_MAX = 60*60*24 # max out the backoff at 1 push per day
      PUSH_INTERVAL_BACKOFF = 1.25

      SERVER = 'klive.cpushare.com'

      PORT = 4921 ...
      Interesting, I see the bash script now, but I don't remember seeing it last week.
      Thanks for pointing that out.

    3. Re:Fine Idea#21 SMP Tue Aug 30 19:54:34 WST 2005 by NullProg · · Score: 1

      Personally, I would like to see it as an option in the kernel

      I disagree. This is nothing other than a user mode utility that greps /proc and udp sends the data back to the server. How does this belong in the kernel? How can you justify the kernel communicating with anything other than the local programs/devices?

      Just curious,
      Enjoy.

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
    4. Re:Fine Idea#21 SMP Tue Aug 30 19:54:34 WST 2005 by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      You know what - maybe you're right. The entire idea of the kernel is to seperate userland/kernel and to have something that greps proc built into the kernel is a bad idea.
      Maybe I should rethink my assertion - we spent a long time getting userland stuff out of the kernel - the last thing we wanna do is cram it back in.
      What could we do though? Are there any standards? Do I trust this guys python script? Do I trust his coding? Shouldn't this maybe be hosted on kernel.org? Maybe this is the start of a new race to see who gets the better "tracker", faster.
      Awww fuck it, back to more beer.

    5. Re:Fine Idea#21 SMP Tue Aug 30 19:54:34 WST 2005 by NullProg · · Score: 1

      What could we do though? Are there any standards? Do I trust this guys python script? Do I trust his coding? Shouldn't this maybe be hosted on kernel.org? Maybe this is the start of a new race to see who gets the better "tracker", faster.
      Awww fuck it, back to more beer.

      Now drinking beer here myself, cheers :)

      Andrea Arcangeli is a well known / better kernel programmer than I am, so I kinda trust him. I downloaded his KLive files and viewed the source. I was annoyed to find a bunch of 'grep ' calls to /proc with a python wrapper (See my previous post in this same thread).

      As far as trust and what we can do, nothing. Were at the mercy of Linus and what he #includes. We can audit/compile our own versions and deploy, but that wastes time.

      My trust vision is a central clearing house of certified Linux software. Sort of like UL labs only for software. To get certified vendors would contribute a fee wich would pay for the testing. Subscribers (distributions) would pay an even smaller fee to download programs. System hackers (myself), beta users or wannabes can dowload the source or whatever they want for free. Symatec, McAfee, FProt etc, should run the Lab. They have the most to loose if a virus/trojan is unleashed (Just as insurance companies fund the bill for UL).

      BTW, you can't get to be a tracker unless you have root, which is really hard to gain. In my opinion this makes Linux a better solution today instead of tomorrow. You can't compromise the system by surfing the web.

      Cheers again and enjoy,

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
  20. Linux Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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."

    And the ability to track user web site visitation and buying habits is valuable to both comsumers and retailers. I still don't want that shit on my computer.

    Spyware is spyware. Any time my computer does something without my permission, I consider is malicious and immediately remedy the situation by removing the offending piece of software.

    1. Re:Linux Spyware by Jane_Dozey · · Score: 1

      "Any time my computer does something without my permission"

      Luckily this "spyware" doesn't install and run itself under the radar.

      --
      Silly rabbit
  21. Once again Linux enters QA 101 by mrkitty · · Score: 0, Troll

    It amazes me that such a widely used product takes 10 years to implement Quality Assurance 101. I can hear the headlines now

    "Linux Kernel team introduces Requirement to defect tracking".

    --
    Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
    1. Re:Once again Linux enters QA 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up, dipshit. This isn't QA, this is tracking usage of stable kernels.

    2. Re:Once again Linux enters QA 101 by mrkitty · · Score: 1

      Being able to track manual and automated test execution is part of *standard* QA. Tracking 'expected' test execution and actual test execution is also the job of an organized mature QA department. Perhaps if you had a worked in an organized company you'd know this. As always 'Anonymous Coward Who Can't use Their Own account for Fear of it being tracked back to them' it's been great talking with you.

      --
      Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
    3. Re:Once again Linux enters QA 101 by ewhac · · Score: 1

      You're looking at it backwards: It's amazing that a software project as solid, reliable, and high-performance as Linux got that way without a "traditional" quality assurance process.

      The note to take away is not that Linux is a piece of junk because it lacked a formal QA cycle, but that true software quality doesn't proceed from a formal QA cycle (though it can help).

      Schwab

      --
      Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
  22. Been there for years... by Chocolate+Teapot · · Score: 1

    ...it's called 'uptime'.

    --
    Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
    1. Re:Been there for years... by lems1 · · Score: 1

      now you just need to allow uptime to run automatically when you boot and send that information over the network (together with uname's output) to some database that's publically available...

      klive seems to be a nice thing. but, it feels like old news for some reason (perhaps is because i read it some time ago in kerneltrap but an article in /. wasn't really submitted?).

      and the last factor, perhaps just flame-war-like, is that it's written in python! yikes! but, if it serves the purpose and it's done well.. who cares about the language use to write the app uh? (i do!)

      --
      This sig can be distributed under the LGPL license
    2. Re:Been there for years... by Taladar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      now you just need to allow uptime to run automatically when you boot
      Running a program measuring the time since the last boot in minutes immediately after the boot seems pretty useless to me...
      --
      Linux is not Windows
    3. Re:Been there for years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poster 1: now you just need to allow uptime to run automatically when you boot

      Poster 2: Running a program measuring the time since the last boot in minutes immediately after the boot seems pretty useless to me...

      Poster 2 is soooo ignorant. This is essential, because it allows all lusers to angrily report back to kernel developers when uptime goes down.

  23. Oh geez. by Stumbles · · Score: 1

    Well screw that. i was going to help by installing it but "python setup.py install" wants Zope installed. Fergit it!

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
    1. Re:Oh geez. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It needs python-twisted.

      aptitude install python-twisted

    2. Re:Oh geez. by Stumbles · · Score: 1

      Yes I can read. sh klive.sh --install Twisted is not installed, you can download it from Most Linux distributions ships with a python-twisted package. Download twisted python. Go to install it: bash-3.00$ python setup.py install "you need zope.interface installed you need zope.interface installed http://zope.org/Products/ZopeInterface/ And I'm not installing Zope. From the NEWS.txt of twisted - 2.0.0 (March 25, 2005): Major new features - Replaced home-grown components system with zope.interface. That's just STUPID. And this stupid website won;t let me paste the entire process. Reason: Please use fewer 'junk' characters. POS.

      --
      My karma is not a Chameleon.
  24. Fai9lz0rs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    members' cReatWive

  25. mod dow8 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    progress. In 1992, the project may be hurt_ing the I don't want 7o 80s, DARPA saw BSD your own towel in Keep unnecessary

  26. Somewhat like the Linux Counter.... by hta · · Score: 1
    a simiar project has been going on at the Linux Counter for years - not every 10 minutes, and not specifically for beta kernels, but still, it's fun to watch the report once in a while.


    Tidbit: Linux 2.6 is now running on more than half the computers tracked.

  27. Spyware? by Da+Twink+Daddy · · Score: 1

    Of course it's not spyware for a linux power-user. We tweak our kernels all the time: "Oh, damn it, my new bluetooth device need the module bt_frobniz, guess I'll just make menuconfig, etc. to install it."

    However, linux is growing up. We have a number of distros out there that are supposedly targeting new or casual users, those that might never fiddle with their .config (even if they do upgrade their kernel, it's probably through an automated tool).

    • As an option in the kernel, it's not spyware.
    • As an option turned on by default, hidden from users, and tweaked (via a small patch) to also send the information elsewhere in IcyHotLindows, it is spyware.

    Now, sure with (or without) the patch, Linus and any other linux defender can point out that the kernel is not to blame, the distro is, but that may not amount to much if the "Linux is Spyware" "headline" gets any amount of press. That kinda crap gets on the "front page"; retractions/clarification are "buried in small print in a random position of page 3b". It doesn't matter the veracity of linux's deferenders claim if they don't catch the same amount of "mindshare".

    If I was to throw my .02$ into the arena on LKML, I'd be against a kernel option, or at /least/ one that requires a userland application [1] to take advantage of. Not because of technological issues, but because of polical ones.

    [1] Yes, this could also be packged by a distro, but then, hopefully, the "headline" would be "<userland-application> is Spyware". People confuse applications with linux less often than they confuse distros with linux

  28. Twisted by rongage · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Twisted by NullProg · · Score: 1

      Even worse, this is a prime example of over engineering. All the client program does is use python to exec 'grep' calls to certain /proc areas and record the information. It then uses the twisted interface to send the information via UDP to the central repository.

      I hate to tell the author, but we have been doing this with a twenty line shell script in all our linux clients for years. Cron calls shell script, shell script calls grep/cut/wc to gather info from /proc. Script calls wget and pushes data down to central web server which stores the information to SQL db.

      Ours is simple, low maintenance, no dependences other than wget.

      Enjoy,

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
    2. Re:Twisted by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Over-engineering is what Open Source is known for.

      That, shoddy documentation, unfixed bugs (as long as they only impact unimportant people - see the X servers locks up your system on switch to a text VC and the Adaptec SCSI driver blocks an APM/ACPI sleep attempt and goes into a permanent 100% CPU spin loop for example), abandoned projects, and re-inventing the wheel 1000 times.

      Look, Slashdot still hasn't fixed the "It's been x minutes since you last posted" bug. For months!

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    3. Re:Twisted by NullProg · · Score: 1

      I can't quite see where your coming from. What you stated hasn't been my experience. Under Linux/BSD the choice of software is still up to the user.

      BTW, the internet made it easier to see peoples mistakes (Failed OSS Projects). It also makes it easier to see the successes (GiMP, Linux, etc).

      No dis-respect intended,
      Enjoy.

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
    4. Re:Twisted by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 1

      Agreed but our failures are starting to become an extreme liability in the court of public opinion.

      Linux would likely have 15% of the desktop market or at the very least, 50% of what Apple has now if these issues were addressed.

      Linux has the geeks as customers.
      Now with every increase of market share they need to pickup customers who are more and more demanding, and less and less forgiving.

      And even geeks get tired of fiddling with stuff just to get it to work. Also, someone interested in TCP/IP, or game writing, etc might not have much tolerance for dealing with X config issues.

      We need to get people on the failed projects (or stagnated projects) to come on board the ones that are viable, combine code where possible, write documentation, fix bugs (any bug over 3 months old should take priority over any new feature or newer non-critical bugs), and "polish" their software so it appeals to the "I just want it to work" crowd (which includes geeks outside their specialties).

      And GIMP needs to be renamed badly.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    5. Re:Twisted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And GIMP needs to be renamed badly.

      Why? It's already badly named.

      Sorry, couldn't resist.

  29. Uptime metric seems fairly useless by uncqual · · Score: 1
    The uptime metric alone seems fairly useless past the point where it's a few weeks on a particular HW platform or with a particular device because the uptime of an idle machine (or one that is just running cc or emacs) should be so long (months depending on the quality of the local power infrastructure) that it's more likely to be rebooted to install a new OS revision than because the OS failed. Anything less is so far from production quality it should never have gotten out of alpha.

    Coupled with meaningful "stress" metrics, "uptime" might be more useful. I don't know the Linux kernel terminology, but internal stats capturing information (averages, min, max, rate or whatever makes sense for the particular case) about run queue lengths, number of threads transitioning from blocked to run, number of threads suspended for a page fault, number of preemptive and non-preemptive thread context switches might be useful. In every OS there are odd edge cases which "hardly ever happen" except in rather unusual cases and stats on some of these may be useful (since they usually are "under tested" and often reflect a stressful or unusual application load).

    --
    Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
  30. Uptime != Testing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I really don't see how this tracks anything other than uptime. Microsoft could probably publish a page listing each development build of Vista as well, and it would more than likely have more uptime than this.

    Its a pathetic attempt to hide the fact that IBM, Redhat and Suse don't devote resources to testing as its in their interest that you have to pay for support and services.

  31. the python mindset by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I tried to load this package but it needed some wierd python oriented installer, which needed of course its own installer, so to install this package, I needed to install a python installer installer.

    So I went back to windows.

  32. heh by PrvtBurrito · · Score: 1

    I read the headline as "New Tool Track to Kernel Testing Time." I like Tool.

    --
    Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
  33. #irc.trolltalk.3om by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

    Create, ma8ufac7ure United States of

  34. How can something this open be spyware? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    Honestly. Maybe you don't like what it's doing, but you know what it's doing, and you can change it. Or, if you aren't a programmer and can't afford one, you can simply disable the feature.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    1. Re:How can something this open be spyware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of JAPH? Totally open source. Frequently incomprehensible.

  35. Spyware? How? by zeekiorage · · Score: 1

    How can something that you have to compile and configure yourself be a spyware?