Slashdot Mirror
Time for a Linux Bug-Fixing Cycle
AlanS2002 writes "As reported here on Slashdot last week, there are some people who are concerned that the Linux Kernel is slowly getting buggier with the new development cycle. Now, according to Linux.com (Also owned by VA) Linus Torvalds has thrown his two cents in, saying that while there are some concerns, it is not as bad as some might have thought from the various reporting. However he says that the 2.6 Kernel could probably do with a breather to get people to calm down a bit."
Linux is BUGGY so it IS about TIME ! In 10 years of NT I've had two panics, and one was when my wife was seeing the neighbor too often. In 1 year of Linux I've had a dozen or more, and the wife hasn't been at the neighbors in a long while.
That is in my opinion the most important flaw within the OSS community, the thing in which many commercial approaches excell but that is something most people don't wish to hear because "commercial = bad". It would help to keep an open mind and look and learn before you judge, but I guess that is also something not many people of us are capable of.
I can't help wonder how long this comedy has to continue before people will finally realize that some things are best adopted instead of mocked. In my opinion this kernel incident is no different. "Homeostasis and Transisstasis". One is the power for change while the other is the power for maintaining the same. Unrelated psycho mumbo jumbo I hear you think? Well, what about that marvelous piece of work (you probably won't find a distro without it) the BerkelyDB ? Its almost as if every released version is incompatible with the previous one. If you don't believe me try installing SquidGuard with the current BerkeleyDB. Or simply stop and wonder why your distribution keeps several versions of the same product around.
This is but a single program, now what about some strict standards? SuSE tried to introduce some standard with regards to administration (Yast being in control; changes should be done through yast all the time, even overruling manual changes) making it possibly a very solid basis for your average workstation. Like being able to administrate and roll out standards through the use of AD. Or what about Java? The so called "free java" is also breaking standards. Ofcourse these free tools were needed because you can't distribute Java. Really, is that so? When I look at the license all I see is that they don't allow you to ship additional software which will replaces parts of the environment. So distributing JRE and kaffe wouldn't be allowed. But what is the use of kaffe if you have the original?
And now the same issue is manifistating itself in the kernel development itself. Change after change and no one seems to care about setting certain standards. Even the well appreciated previous standard on seperation between stable and unstable has been thrown in the bucket for no other reason than "we don't feel like it anymore". And this is exactly the thing which makes OSS unreliable in the eyes of many.
I'm not condemning this perse since it is but a hobby (although people sure don't like to profile it this way anymore) but I do think people should realize this before they start barking up other people's legs for trying to maintain certain standards, enforced if need to. "Everything should be free?", maybe that is a noble cause but throwing smoothly working things in the pools of chaos and cheering that it is now free while the product itself as it once was is utterly destroyed isn't always the best way.
So in the case of the kernel development I'd say setup some (new?) standards and this time STICK with them instead of dropping whatever you build simply because you don't feel like it anymore. Only then will you last a whole lot longer and will it even survive when Linus stops caring about all this. But in any other situation I foresee Linux exploding (splintering into many factions and ideas) due to several people trying to oppose several "standards" because they simply "don't feeel like it".
found\ out about the turned over to yet Alike to reap you join Rtoday!
yeah, the fix is called BSD. (open)
*runs*
If the companies want their shit to run in Linux, the should submit GPL'd drivers or suffer their rightful hell for being miserly with their code in a project based on sharing. To hell with them.
Point 5 - Cry more noob.
Haha, this is the typical 12 year old Linux fanboy answer comment...
A few comments have flown already, but let's be sane here and examine microkernelism.
File system crashes. Microkernel is going to panic because there's no way in hell it can guarantee consistency with running processes now; the FS driver might log-replay or FSCK, but all open file handles become invalid (this can be reduced though...). A monolith is also going to panic; the driver may be in a kernel thread and get flushed and re-initialized, but same problem with file handles.
IDE driver crashes. Microkernel can block disk reads, bring it back up and hold the file system's state, re-flush buffers that weren't confirmed, unblock disk reads. Monolyth may do the same if the driver is in a separate kernel thread.
Sound driver crashes. Microkernel re-inits it. Monolyth re-inits the thread if it wants to (Linux just says it's broke and sound stops working).
Video crashes. Hardware needs a re-initing. Microkernel means X gets killed! Monolyth means X gets killed! Although the video driver CAN be re-initialized, Linux is likely to panic; MULTICS was easily 70% error recovery code, UNIX we just had this routine called panic() where you yell down the hall to reboot it...
Network crashes. Our entire TCP/IP stack is blown out. Microkernel re-inits it, monolyth can too, most likely we let it die and you reboot. We got tired of panic()ing for simple shit, we call this "Oops."
What a microkernel DOES have that's nice is the ability to quickly and easily ensure that drivers with fucked up code don't stomp all over other kernel memory. I suppose some MM hacks can be done to remove writability but..
What Linux really needs is the 2.6 model for odd series, as "Volatile," on a set even "Stable" series release cycle where "Volatile" is pinned as "Stable." That way the "Volatile" is always as usably stable as 2.6 is now, while "Stable" is concrete. Everybody happy and no silly 2.6.x.y running trees.
Support my political activism on Patreon.