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."

8 of 455 comments (clear)

  1. It already is "forked" by trolltalk.com · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... 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.

    --
    Kevin Smith on Prince
  2. Fork? No. Seperate projects? Yes. by Vanders · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Syllable : It's an Operating System
  3. One size rarely fits all by Creamsickle · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!

    --
    On the 0th day, God created C
  4. No you can not by iamacat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:No you can not by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  5. That's exactly what Ubuntu does by quanticle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
  6. Distro should be doing the fork by WindBourne · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  7. Microsoft astroturfing alert! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?