Slashdot Mirror
2.6 Linux Kernel in Need of an Overhaul?
toadlife writes "ZDNet UK reports that Andrew Morton, the head maintainer of the Linux production kernel, is concerned about the amount of bugs in the 2.6 kernel. He is considering the possibility of dedicating an entire release cycle to fixing long standing bugs." From the article: "One problem is that few developers are motivated to work on bugs, according to Morton. This is particularly a problem for bugs that affect old computers or peripherals, as kernel developers working for corporations don't tend to care about out-of-date hardware, he said. Nowadays, many kernel developers are employed by IT companies, such as hardware manufacturers, which can cause problems as they can mainly be motivated by self-interest."
This may look like flamebait, but I'm actually serious. Microkernels are more reliable because of drivers running on userspace. If a driver crashes, it can't take down the whole system. Also, given that some microkernels are only about 3500-6000 lines of code (as opposed to Linux's million or so) it's relatively easy to make certain that the code is bug free (given that the average number of bugs is 16 bugs per 1000 lines of code according to some recent studies).
So, if the kernel needs an overhaul, the why not do it right this time? Now some may say that microkernels have a performance hit, but todays machines are certainly fast enough to render any performance hit negligible.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Yes, we all know the famous "blue screen of death" and I think that that single concept connected with Windows makes it unappealing. [...] Win95 & Win98 first editions would crash if you looked at them wrong.
Er.. I hate Windows as much as the next guy, but really, when was the last time you saw Windows bluescreen? Perhaps you could make your point by comparing Windows and Linux versions that aren't 11 years apart.
I believe that Linux has the ability to handle internal errors more elegantly but that's only because I've only seen it fail from hardware errors.
Yes but it handles hardware errors gracefully too: for example, one of my 24/7 machines's hard-disk died last week. I came back and found out that I couldn't write anything to it at. A quick look at the console showed a message saying "root filesystem, too many errors, remounting read-only" or something like that. The result is that data corruption was minimal *AND* the machine didn't hang. How's that for graceful? You wouldn't dream of having that in Windows.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I follow Ubuntu with the latest kernel updates and I tell you with every update performance increases.. .When I booted Windows I used to feel the difference, but not anymore. I think the quality of the kernel is fine. There other people that need to improve in quality, e.g. the rest of the free apps, esp packagers who have to make the thing to just work.. What will I do with stability if nothing works? Am I going to just look at the computer while its all stable doing nothing?
Add a "highscore list" and it's already hitting home.
No, don't mod me funny. I mean it. Make it a page every halfway important person in the OS-community wants to read, make it the place to go looking of you're headhunting for a person with fixing skills.
Today, you rarely if ever get to start a new project. Most of the time, you're hired for a project that's been running for ages. And there, you don't need a coder who can pull fast algos out of his rear, you need people who can deal with alien code, understand it quickly and debug it. And there you'd have those people, listed. The top debuggers of the world.
Just make sure HR gets to read it and they know their applicant list.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.