Fork the Linux Kernel?

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."

Comments

It already is "forked"

[trolltalk.com]

... but only in the sense that it is customized for different purposes - mobile phones, desktops, servers, supercomputing clusters.

Besides, most people's desktops are much more powerful than any server you'd be able to buy years ago. With the cost of cheap disks going down, there's no excuse for even home users to ignore the benfits of such "server" features as raid.

Re:It already is "forked"

[Anonymous Coward]

My grandmother could care less about RAID unless its in a bottle and kills bugs. Your assumption that everyone needs that is typical geek mentality.

Re:It already is "forked"

[trolltalk.com]

Your grandmother probably doesn't have 10 year's worth of email that she doesn't want to lose. And most users don't bother backing up because its too much of a PITA.

Your average user NEEDS a quick and simple backup procedure.

RAID1 is simple to set up, makes the machine run faster (reads are split between the two or more mirrored drives), and backing up is a matter of a minute - you turn the machine off, pull out one drive, insert a new one, reboot and rebuild the RAID in the background).

So, with the addition of a couple of hard drives in removable housings, you have a backup solution that works, is easy enough that even grandma can do it, and also improves your machine's performance.

A lot cheaper than losing everything and re-installing from scratch ...

Actually....

[inode_buddha]

Actually, its been done before. Remember when we had a "stable" and an "unstable" pair? IMHO the idea of forking into desktop and server versions is a technical answer to a political problem with various developer's goals.

Fork for other reasons

[athloi]

A different branch of distros for the desktop makes sense, but I'm not sure the kernel is what needs addressing.

It makes sense for Linux to fork into two branches: one, a conservative one, aimed at upkeeping what already works, and the second, a wild-ass anarchist, aimed at forging new and innovative technologies.

I think what the original author was saying was that he/she would like the Linux community to fork into two branches, one thinking like desktop software (Windows XP is the best example) and another thinking like big iron, where Linux already has a presence but could learn a thing or two from *BSD.

Fork? No. Seperate projects? Yes.

[Vanders]

There is no need to fork Linux into a "desktop" version. Projects like Syllable already exist, and we re-use a fair amount of code from Linux, GNU and other OSS projects.

One size rarely fits all

[Creamsickle]

People who advocate this aren't necessarily stupid, just ignorant. The Linux kernel's flexibility is being taken to the limit, and people are forgetting the easiest way to improve performance for their particular rig: Customize your kernel! You can add all the code in the universe, and then you pick and choose the particular things you need or don't need! Say I run a 486/25 with 16 MB RAM as an IP Masq router. The hard drive is an old IDE with 600 megs of space. I have two network cards, and that's about it. Do I need SCSI support? Do I need to support joysticks, X, Pentiums, AX.25, or anything else? No! I compile a kernel specifically to run the IP Masq, and run it well. My P100 laptop, on the other hand needs a bit more. I use it for packet, so I need AX.25. It uses PCMCIA, so PCMCIA support needs to go in. I use Seamonkey and the GIMP, so I need graphics. But, my HD is not SCSI. I yank out SCSI. My CPU is subject to the 0xf00f bug, so that gets included. I brew a custom kernel, and boot time is a lot shorter. My big-rig is a AMD X2. I need just about everything, as I have a Nvidia card for Quake4; a SCSI scanner; and a connection to my Packet base station. I optimize compilation for the higher-end computers. I plan on getting a Mac Pro from Apple and putting SuSE on it. Again, by optimizing the options I optimize my system. Get the point? If you want a once-size-fits-all kernel, use Windows. If you want a kernel which can be adjusted for your particular and peculiar environment, use Linux and customize your kernel!

Why not.

[LWATCDR]

I think that right now the majority of development at the kernel level is server based. It is only logical after all since the majority of paying Linux systems are servers. When I mean paying I mean paying their way. The technical question is can one scheduler work well for both server loads and desktop loads. Is there an ideal scheduler that works every where? We know that isn't true when you are dealing with real-time systems so is it true for the desktop?
I don't think this is a dumb question I just happen to think that currently there isn't a need to fork the kernel.
I happen to think that currently there isn't really a need to fork the Kernel into a server and desktop version. I feel that most of the performance problems with Linux on the desktop are in X and not in the kernel. I think more work needs to be done in X to solve the problem than the Kernel.

No you can not

[iamacat]

Putting a bunch of #if 0's into complex, bloated code doesn't make it slim and efficient. Statements elsewhere still make assumptions about one of 1000 things happening rather than one in 10. Slow, scalable algorithms are used rather than lean but limited ones. make config is not going to turn your Linux into FreeDOS.

Re:No you can not

[Midnight Thunder]

Putting a bunch of #if 0's into complex, bloated code doesn't make it slim and efficient. Statements elsewhere still make assumptions about one of 1000 things happening rather than one in 10. Slow, scalable algorithms are used rather than lean but limited ones. make config is not going to turn your Linux into FreeDOS.

Another approach is to use an object-oriented model, so you just include the implementation you need for the specific interface or class. I believe Darwin (the kernel used by MacOS X) already uses such an approach for some things?

Re:No you can not

[MarcoAtWork]

It's just not true that Linus doesn't care about the desktop

I didn't say he didn't care, but if something comes up that will increase the desktop performance by x% and kill server performance by y%, it won't go in as far as I can see. Linus wants the kernel to get better as a whole, of course, but this is a lot harder than having a separate branch where the focus will be shifted from 'making things better' to 'making things better FOR THE DESKTOP even if it means a significant lowering of server/big iron performance'.

Re:No you can not

[MarcoAtWork]

I am not volunteering to be a mantainer: I don't have any interest in linux on the desktop nowadays since although I use it at work both as a server OS and as a development OS, at home I am running XPSP2 and have been for a couple of years after many years running linux exclusively (since the 1.1.98 days to give you an idea). I am talking from the perspective of somebody who has been semi on the sidelines of this, and hence I don't have any specific examples to contribute regarding my assertion, it was just a guess based on what LKML looks like.

In general am just saying that if somebody comes up and says 'let's fork!' the reaction shouldn't automatically be negative, let anybody do whatever forking they want, if it has merit it will survive, if not it will die: no need to panic.

In any case personally I think linux on the desktop as a primary OS is pointless for the general public, it's much better to just run XP/Vista (for all the win32-only apps you need, like games, cubase, photoshop, etc.) and use linux inside a VM whenever you need it (which is what I have been doing for the past couple of years, with absolutely no regrets, I so don't miss dual-booting).

That's exactly what Ubuntu does

[quanticle]

Perhaps the source code does, but there's nothing stopping you from leaving out all the server-specific stuff from your desktop kernel when you compile it.

If I understand correctly, that's exactly what Ubuntu does with their "desktop" and "server" version. The desktop version have certain modules and patches that the server versions do not, and vice versa.

Distro should be doing the fork

[WindBourne]

Really, the distro should do the fork, and they actually do. While most have general compiled kernels, others have kernels compiled based on what is desired; server or desktop. Solves the issue.

Ruse...

[C10H14N2]

Con and Ingo are just continuing the bitch session about the scheduler.

Not stupid, just arrogant.

[Shivetya]

"They" don't agree with the new scheduler; face it this is where most of the divide is; so "they" want their own version but they know damn well that unless they have Linus's blessing its dead in the water. As such expect attempts to guilt him. As such see attempts to deflect attention from their real peeve by suggesting 'multiples' instead of just their way and his way.

Arrogant from the standpoint that since they can't have their way and cannot get support for their own on their own they want Linus to do that for them. If 'they' are so right then 'they' will win out in the end. Regardless its their Linux and they will have to name it something people will cleary understand is not Linus

Re:Why is it stupid?

[Burz]

It is not stupid.

1. For one, there's no attempt to provide a stable ABI for 3rd-party drivers, so users must contend with their video card not working after upgrading the kernel.
2. Same goes for all kinds of drivers, like VMware, OMFS for my Rio Karma, and some Wifi modules. The only accommodation has been the new userspace driver interface for low-performance devices... far too little too late.
3. The Sound architechture is a failure: Even with OSS fully deprecated there are still various sound servers the user must contend with, resulting in blocked audio output. It took ages to deprecate OSS and now ALSA is not working! This means that people cannot rely on calendar alarms, softphones and such. All audio output should be MIXED unless a special app jumps through well-defined hoops to get exclusive access, and telling people to buy the $70 multichannel sound card is not acceptable.
4. There is no active "Linux Compatible" trademark promotion for hardware vendors to use. How are end-users and retailers supposed to clue-in and make compatible purchases otherwise? Have the kernel devs even bothered to put a friendly and concise HCL online?
5. Like audio, Power Management is nine years behind Windows. Among other problems, where is the ability to have USB and FW drives automatically spin down when they're inactive? Oh wait, those aren't used in the server room...

The above list is by no means exhaustive, but it indicates (no, PROVES) that the kernel development model is hackneyed, lacking the concept of defined actors and use cases, and considers common end-user scenarios only capriciously. They've talked themselves into believing that user interfaces aren't their job at that level; that anything they toss down from the on-high server market will more than suffice for desktops, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Re:Well that's the beauty of Linux...

[recoiledsnake]

Can you, or this blogger, or anyone, site some actual evidence that shows what the fuck "optimized" even means? You know, you guys go around spouting stuff about how Linux is too serveresque, but no one so far as I've seen has even defined that. A decade ago there might have been something to the complaint, although I can tell you now that I can take a Pentium 233mhz and turn it into a router running the newer kernels, and have it run like a hot damn, so I think you, like some other folks, are just spouting ill-conceived crapola.

Huh? Cite what? Have you been living under a rock? Even Linus knows the issues involved and hence is moving to CFS in the latest kernel.

The issues are complex, so no wonder your oversimplications and silly anectodes fail to make the cut. As for actual evidence, read about how Con Kolivas set about doing exactly what you asked here . Also I think you should read the CK mailing lists if you really want to get into the nitty gritty details.

Why not try to keep yourself informed instead of accusing others of spouting crapola? Or maybe everyone should take your word and stop trying to improve Linux because you "can take a Pentium 233mhz and turn it into a router running the newer kernels, and have it run like a hot damn"

Re:Well that's the beauty of Linux...

[MightyMartian]

He criticizes Stallman because Stallman is a fanatical maniac. Not that Linus is that much better, but at least he's still productive, as opposed to having turned into a prognosticating mushroom.

As to forking, there's nothing Linus can do to stop you or anyone. Go ahead, fork the goddamn thing.

Re:How much improvement?

[audi100quattro]

While the technical aspects of forking, and maintaining the fork might not be very high, the fact is that a significant portion of the kernel is desktop-only related. Sure nobody is going to be using Infiniband on the desktop, but there are plenty of USB drivers in there as well. The kernel has DRM modules which give direct access to graphics hardware, making X a lot faster. I wouldn't mind seeing %'s for how much is server-only, desktop-only, embedded-only and for all three. The embedded stuff is probably small, but the rest two are probably on an equal footing. There are enough options in make menuconfig for the most choosy desktop-customizer to be happy. The server features trickle down to desktop users often enough too, I could see if this fork was done 5 or more years ago, the desktop version might not have SMP or even support anything other than x86, basically dooming itself to irrelevance. If there really is something that isn't accepted in the mainline (and there are many, reiser4, SD, kgdb, openvz,....) but should be, most decent patches are actively maintained in some other tree for you to use and abuse. New features like kprobes and new file system work might not be started by itself in one tree, but here they are. There is a bit of un-predictability in deciding which way things should go and the way they actually do. Those issues would be worse if there were a desktop-fork. I'd probably be using the server-fork if they decided to keep in the DRM and USB modules. I'm curious though, I want to know that M$ does in this case!

Microsoft astroturfing alert!

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting! This "recoiledsnake" guy (parent poster), up to this point, was a thinly masked Microsoft apologist:

He was slamming OpenOffice

He was posting a Microsoft explanation for the Windows stealth-update scandal

He was flaming Apple users

He was downplaying an article about a boot sector virus on a Windows Vista laptop

And now, after a long history of Microsoft-centric and Microsoft-friendly comments, he is suddenly pretending to be an expert in Linux kernel matters, giving a deceptive and incorrect account of what happened. (He even got moderated to "Informative". I expect to be modded me down for this - dont spare me.)

Read this if you are curious about the true story of why and how Con Kolivas quit kernel hacking:

LWN.net article

Written by long-time Linux kernel observer Jonathan Corbet.

Could this really be Microsoft PR in action? Is Microsoft trying to plant false grass-roots "history" via such deceptive postings? Seeing that they cannot win via technology in the marketplace, is Microsoft now trying to attack the credibility and integrity of Linux kernel developers?

Re:Microsoft astroturfing alert!

[recoiledsnake]

Note: I am only replying to this AC post because it has been modded up and because of it, my +5 informative GP has been reduced +4 by a "- troll" moderation.

Very interesting! This "recoiledsnake" guy (parent poster), up to this point, was a thinly masked Microsoft apologist:

Those who don't follow the Slashdot groupthink == Microsoft apologist?

He was slamming OpenOffice

Pointing out OO's deficiencies is slamming it? Is it a perfect piece of software?

He was flaming Apple users

I was correcting a mistake in the parent's post.

He was downplaying an article about a boot sector virus on a Windows Vista laptop

Read again. I did nothing of that sort and was adding relevant information to the parent post.

And now, after a long history of Microsoft-centric and Microsoft-friendly comments, he is suddenly pretending to be an expert in Linux kernel matters...

You mean one cannot make Microsoft-centric while being an expert in Linux kernel matters? As part of a OS course I once wrote a Linux filesystem driver which ran in the kernel. I have installed and run RedHat Linux, Mandrake, Gentoo, SuSe, Ubuntu, Debian and a few more. My thesis included writing a program that ran on Windows, Linux and OS X. These days I work with C# and ASP.NET. I once toyed with writing a Linux sound driver for a Soundblaster card but someone else did it first and I lost interest. I currently dual boot Vista and Ubuntu and use a FreeBSD shell.

So, maybe, just maybe, someone can be well versed in the Linux kernel as well as MS technologies? Or is it a black and white thing with no shades of grey and us vs. them?

...giving a deceptive and incorrect account of what happened. (He even got moderated to "Informative". I expect to be modded me down for this - dont spare me.)

Note that you cannot pinpoint any misappropriations in my post. I even asked readers to correct my account if they can, because I may not know all the facts. And nice job on the "Mod me down..." line. Atleast a couple of moderators have fallen for it.

Read this if you are curious about the true story of why and how Con Kolivas quit kernel hacking: LWN.net article Written by long-time Linux kernel observer Jonathan Corbet.

That article does not say that the only reason for him quitting was the swap pre-fetch. It was just that Con announced his departure in a discussion related to it. I am sure swap prefetch was a small fry to him compared to the whole scheduler issue.

Could this really be Microsoft PR in action? Is Microsoft trying to plant false grass-roots "history" via such deceptive postings? Seeing that they cannot win via technology in the marketplace, is Microsoft now trying to attack the credibility and integrity of Linux kernel developers?

OMG IT'S A M$ SHILL.BURN HIM!!!! Needless paranoia. Where is the false grass-roots "history" that I have planted? And no, this is not Microsoft PR in action. The closest I was to Microsoft was when I was in Seattle to attend a Amazon interview for a C++/Linux position. Also, nice use of the question mark. Reminds me of Jon Stewart's take on FOX News in this very entertaining video .