Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fork the Linux Kernel?

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the bad-ideas dept.

Joe Barr writes "Fork the kernel? Are you crazy? A blog entry on InfoWorld.com urged the Linux community to fork the kernel into desktop and server versions because, according to the author, all Linus Torvalds cares about is big iron. Sorry, but that's both wrong and stupid."

4 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well that's the beauty of Linux... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Informative

    Or, alternatively, you could just custom compile the fucking thing to take out the "big iron" if that's what you want. I frequently custom compile kernels, particularly when I'm putting Linux on older hardware.

    There's nothing quite like the grand proclamations of the idiots.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  2. I don't see the need by downix · · Score: 5, Informative

    The only difference between a "server" build and a "desktop" build, kernel-wise, is in which components/modules you compile. Functionally, there is no difference. Same goes for Windows, the "desktop" and "server" kernels are fundimentally the same, it is only what you put on top of them that differentiates the two.

    Someone here does not understand the difference between a kernel and an OS.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
  3. Re:No you can not by recoiledsnake · · Score: 5, Informative

    Your examples totally miss the point. The CPU scheduler is a *lot* more crucial to desktop performance than swap space, memory config etc. etc.

    Have you even been keeping up with the whole CPU scheduler in the kernel issue that the article mentions?

    The whole point is that the CPU scheduler is NOT modular and you cannot change its behavior by much by changing kernel options. Con(along with soemone else) made patches to make it modular, calling it plugsched, but it was nixed from getting into the kernel by Linus who said something on the lines of "The scheduler is not something you see frequent changes in."

    Con wanted it because desktop users can easily plug his desktop-centric scheduler into the kernel. For a lot more details read here .

    --
    This space for rent.
  4. The Linux Desktop already crawls.. by vdboor · · Score: 5, Informative

    Call me stupid, but the Linux desktop already crawls.

    There used to be a time I could download 5 shared files, burn a CD and watch a DivX movie at the same time. That was with Slackware 9.0 and Linux 2.4.20.

    Nowadays it takes my browser 2 seconds to open a *tab*, and another 2 seconds per website. This happened because there was continuous I/O activity in the background. After the I/O completed everything was back to normal. Bottom line: every serious I/O activity causes the desktop to crawl.

    It's still the same machine (AMD 1800 and DMA-enabled) but interactivity my Linux system had is unmatched by the recent kernels. The problem is too many commercial developers care about server performance alone, or test desktop performance with their quad-core raid array configuration. Patches get rejected too when they affect server performance.

    I'm honestly not surprised people want a change here, or even start suggesting a fork.

    --
    The best way to accelerate a windows server is by 9.81 m/s2 ;-)