Slashdot Mirror
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."
If you want to fork the Linux Kernel, there's absolutely nothing from stopping you from doing it yourself. Wanna tune a version just for Desktop or Server? By all means, just adhere to GPL. Your attempt at forking might even get some support from the community, however I'd think Linus's blessing on such a fork means something however...
...in bed
I'd rather spoon it
Why not? It made Microsoft plenty of money...err
I can not see why is it a stupid idea. Forking the Kernel in desktop and server forks will mean that each specific kernel is optimized for such tasks and that the distribution makers have just a subset of the huge kernel to care about when creating their distributions.
A server is a relly different beast than a desktop and having this "all-in-one" kernel means that the operating system gets bloated with a) desktop specific features when using a server and b) Server specific features when installing a desktop.
I think that a controlled fork in the linux version control tree might be beneficial.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
It's a blog post, so it's not like it's going to happen, but I don't see how forking the kernel would do anything than just lead to distribution craziness. Arguably that's Linux's biggest hurdle for new people -- deciding which distribution to get. And if people are checking out linux for workload purposes, forcing them to decide whether to get a server distro or a home distro and making that distinction at the kernel level? Buh?
Generally, if it's good enough for enterprise, it's good enough for home use. And things that are useful for desktop Linux are often utilized at the enterprise level anyway. So yeah, it's just a blog post; I'm not sure anyone will take it seriously.
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
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.
C|N>K
Why is this even controversial? If you don't like the way things work, the beauty of open source is that you can fork the code at any point. So...quit whining ("prings"?) and good luck with your fork.
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.
technical writing / development
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
Shrug. Let 'em fork it. I doubt they'll be able to swing enough maintainers to seriously effect development on the main fork.
One of the great strengths of open source is that it allows for competing code. If the new fork is better (I view this as unlikely) then I'll switch. I'm about what works.
When the level of discourse falls to articles of faith and prejudice, it's not about what's best for the code anymore. It's about your personal ideology, y
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
# Forking isn't necessary.
options BIGIRON
#options DESKTOP
Linux has far too many varieties already, it makes mainstream hardware and software support almost impossible.
And they want to fork the only consistent bit ?
If they want to do a desktop version, it's time for the kernel developers to branch out into standardising Desktop libraries, desktops (KDE vs Gnome), devices, packages etc etc... so that we can have our 1000 versions of Linux and a single underlying version of Desktop Linux.
Maybe then, Linux may make a dent in the world of Desktop Windows.
EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
The less segregation in the Linux world the better, at least until desktop Linux is better at coping with new versions of the current kernel line (eg nVidia graphics drivers needing recompiling when a new version comes out and that sort of thing). Having different forks of the kernel would eventually also lead to software that can only be run on one fork without modification, and that's not much use either. The less work involved in porting to different distros/platforms, the better IMO.
which is totally what she said
fact, the kernel is the core, everything else sits on top, no matter what, server, desktop, etc. Linux is doing well in server, desktop, mobile devices because its consistently provided a powerful and (read this, microsoft bastards) functional operating system. I have friends with reasonably powerful laptops which choke on windows bile, become soperific and lethargic, unresponsive and surly (like the dwarf). I run X windows with fluxbox on some of our old servers fine. Splitting linux is pointless and counter productive. Viva la linux!
prepare the survey weasels.
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
The advantages gained in forking a kernel are minimal compared to the disadvantages. Not to mention a lot of those advantages of a fork can be obtained by simply compiling a kernel based on your server's hardware and computing needs. If someone forked it they would then have to maintain two separate code bases, two separate patch bases a new naming scheme. Not to mention the main advantage stated which is getting rid of bloat occurs because of compiled driver support which means that only a small subset of hardware would be supported in theory and most of the bloat he is speaking about comes from the GNU side of things and can easily NOT BE INSTALLED or un-installed if so necessary...
Linux has no central repository, so the concept of forking linux is meaningless. Linus' branch is considered "official" because it historical and institutional reasons, not technical ones. Anyone can create their own branch and start incorporating patches, even pulling from others' branch. I believe this is exactly the reason why Linus switched to the new SCM system (Git).
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.
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.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I've generally found "Wrong and stupid" goes hand in hand with blogs. The easier it is to be heard, the lower the signal to noise ratio is going to get. It'd be nice if we could just taser them but perhaps unconstitutional. :D
Relevant quote: "Don't taser me! Ow! Ow! Ow!" - opportunistic journalist at Democratic National Convention
First, Linux is Linus' hobby that is kinda also a job. I've read somewhere where he said that he is more proud of Linux being on a digital picture frame that he bought his wife than having it on the top500 list.
Second, AFAIK, the kernel is fine for both desktop and server stuff. There are compile options to optimize for each, and patches, etc. Linux on the desktop is difficult because of a lacking standard and good software installation system and GUI environment and various other things. The kernel is fine for the desktop. There simply is not software on top of said kernel to make it desktop friendly.
In which case you're pretty dim.
jh
It's probably a serious concern!
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
I can not see why is it a stupid idea.
Me neither, especially considering that's all the frothy-mouthed zealots tell you to do when you criticize the kernel developers.
Linux user: I like Linux but I think the kernel should incorporate feature X.
Linux zealot: If you don't like it, fork the kernel!
Linux user: I think the kernel developers aren't open enough to contributions.
Linux zealot: If you don't like it, fork the kernel!
Linux user: I think the kernel is too focused on big iron.
Linux zealot: If you don't like it, fork the kernel!
Linux user: Ok, I guess I'll fork the kernel then.
Linux zealot: OMG YOU CAN'T FORK THE KERNEL!!!
What's this? Someone with a blog pulled a half-baked idea out of his butt, and then posted it where the entire Internet could see it? And some other people don't agree with him?
That's amazing! An event of this magnitude only happens once in a billion femtoseconds! Why aren't we all paying more attention to this incredible discovery?
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.
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
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.
Uh, you know that it still does? You just have to pick and choose what you want. If Linux doesn't run in 16 MB of Ram, how do people get it running on things like the Nintendo DS with a whopping 4 MB?
Okay, so somebody made a stupid blog post. Why submit it to Slashdot?
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Con and Ingo are just continuing the bitch session about the scheduler.
"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
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You could have made the same argument against including SMP a few years ago. And look, now ~90% of PCs (thats personal computers, for you me grandma and the king of Tahiti) have multiple processors. We don't know the direction computers are going to take in the future, but a lot of previous high end server stuff has trickled down into the consumer level hardware.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
In Linux, if the projected is run badly, there are calls to:
- Fork the project and do it "right"[TM]
In Windows, if the projected is run badly, there are calls to:
- Knife the new version and fix the dam bugs in the old version
In MacOS, if the project is run badly, there are calls to:
- Spoon the new version. You just don't understand the superiority of the new "Mac way"[TM] because you're stuck in the "Windows Mindset"[TM]
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
The question is not whether you can fork the kernel, the question is whether you should. On one side, you have hope that this would revive progress in desktop Linux. On the other, you have fear that this would create conflict and duplication of effort.
My answer? It just doesn't matter. Yes, desktop Linux is being neglected. But it's not because LT has developed a Big Iron fetish. It's because Open Source development, despite what people like to think, is subject to economic pressure.
OS evolved out of "Free Software", which is based on the quaint notion that software development is totally divorced from economics. Yeah yeah, I know about the beer/freedom dichotomy. It's BS. "Free" software has never been about anything but RMS throwing a tantrum over the fact that AT&T starting making people pay for Unix licenses. So he set out to write a "free" OS. Which, 20 years later, he still hasn't finished!
On the other hand, the anarchistic/fascist development model behind "Free" software (anybody can hack the source code, but the direction of a project is totally controlled by a small cadre not answerable to the other developers) turns out to be a pretty good way to develop non-proprietary software. Before, when a bunch of companies wanted to do this, they'd form a committee. After endless wrangling and compromise, the committee would produce a spec or standard that was usually feature-bloated, hard to implement, and basically satisfied no one. With the new model, somebody (like Linus Torvalds) with a vision for a new software product just sits down and starts coding. If the product turns out to be useful, people start contributing to it, and the product grows. Because LT chooses to listen to his contributers, but isn't compelled to accept their ideas, the product grows organically, responsive to user needs. Thus Open Source Software was invented.
But isn't that just the same as Free Software? No it's not. Because the OSS movement acknowledges that not all programmers can get by on grant money. Most Open Source code is written by programmers who are paid to do it. Who pays them? Companies that have a use the new feature or fix being coded, and find it in their own best interest to donate the new code to the OSS community.
That's why so much Linux kernel development is driven by the needs of Big Iron manufacturers (like the company I work for). They love Linux because it's a de-facto standard. And because it's not a real standard, it lacks the compromises and feature bloat of committee-driven software. It helps them sell hardware, and its in their interest to have their in-house programmers make improvements to it. But of course, those programmers are only going to make improvements that their employers actually need.
TFA cites Con Kolivas's retirement from kernel work as a sign that desktop Linux isn't healthy. But in fact the bad sign was that Con Kolivas was ever the leading hacker for desktop kernel features. Because nobody ever paid him for his work on the kernel. Indeed, he's not even a working programmer! He's a medical doctor who programs as a hobby.
That pretty much sums up the status of desktop Linux: it still belongs to hobbyists at a time when server-side Linux is an important commercial product. Unless and until you can change that, it doesn't matter who controls Linux kernel development: the needs of Big Iron will prevail.
Slashdot and linux.com are owned by the same company. Joe Barr submitted the slashdot article and also wrote the rebuttal blog. He can look smart and double the ad revenue all in one story.
See subject.
The linux development model is built on forking anyway.
Trying to fork linux is like trying to burn fire.
I hear what you're saying, but the real question is whether or not the gain balances out the pain. Assuming, and that's a big assumption, that there's some improvement to be had, the question is: how much?
Let's assume that you fork the kernel, tweak it to meet "desktop users' needs", and find that your real world improvements offer no significant advantage? So what if you get an extra FPS in Quake? Would that really be worth all of that effort?
Personally, I think all of the effort on eking out the last iota of performance is misplaced. Personally I'd rather have a system with more internal checks and layers to ensure stability and to protect the kernel from hacks and attacks.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Clearly optimized!
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?
The Steenkin Kernel.
Case in point: BSD vs SYS V. What sepereated these distrubtions was a design philosophy.
There was a call to fork the kernel, based upon the replacement of the scheduler, but that can be handled with differing defines. But until there is a compelling design philosoply, like GNU vs Linux, or even a liscencing issue such as Purity of Open Source, vs mixing some 3D binary drivers. Dont FORK WITH LINUX. Use the dessert spoon.
This idea for server/client is a *Marketing* Idea. You can already install a subset of the full Redhat distrubtion for use as a server or a client workstation OR a developer workstation, and as I remember it, also a database server. ( MySQL et al ), but its too bad that I *hate* the RP package system so much, that I am using GenToo.
My 3 cents