Slashdot Mirror
The Interactive Linux Kernel Map
Constantine writes "The Linux kernel is one of most complex open source projects. Even though there are a lot of books on the Linux kernel, it is still a difficult subject to comprehend. The interactive Linux kernel map gives you a top-down view of the kernel. You can see the most important layers, functionalities, modules, functions, and calls. Each function on the map is a link to its source code. The map is interactive. You can zoom in and drag around to see details."
Now the terrorists will know where to strike us!
After looking at all that, am I the only one who is sorta taken by how complicated it is, and under the impression I am looking at the various complications of the Borg collective Consciousness?
(Before anyone makes the Bill Gates of Borg jokes, I have friends who say that really Microsoft is much more like the Jem'Hadar than the Borg. They don't really assimilate, they just show up with guns and take what they want.
I've worked on several different OS's and learned their internals intimately. Although I have used Linux a moderate amount I have no such understanding of the internal Linux architecture, so this slashdot post caught my interest. However, I RTFA, such as it is, but come away only with the belief that this is a further effort to make the OS look much more obscure and cryptic than any OS actually is. If anyone really learns much about the Linux OS from this thing I would be amazed.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Someone has to ask it, and I have to admit I'm more curious about it than this. I want to see something similar to this for Windows or OS X, to compare with. Not down to the code level. (I did go trolling around in the code reading some comments, interesting stuff) but at least to see the difference in how things are laid out by comparison.
Surely there are a few that have poked around in those two systems enough to give us a rough fleshing out of the internal structure?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I assume that this isn't manually built. How is it generated? Is the software available for use with other programs?
The overall user experience sucks at best. Go ahead and flame me.
Allright I will. I'm surprised you people still exist and even more surprised you still dare posting such nonsense on /. .
The user experience of the desktop-geared distributions matches OS X and even transcends it a lot of times.
And saying it's hard to install makes no sense. OS X is preinstalled and can only be installed on a very, very limited number of computers. You can't just compare them. OS X is not 'better' at installing, it's just out of category. And Linux still does a lot better than Windows in terms of hardware compatibility.
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
Get back to your tower of ignorance.
Your post is rather contradictory. You say the kernel is rock solid, yet then say you have video, audio and lock-up issues, which would actually most likely be caused by kernel issues. I doubt the problems really existed, as you have been purposefully scant on details. Also, I have a few different cards from different iterations of the Sound Blaster generations and they are some of the most stable and functional sound cards under Linux, so I think this is just an oversight of your ignorance.
Gnome isn't designed to be OS X-like. It is designed to be functional, and I feel it excels at this. Want an OS X-like desktop environment? Go design one.
Can't set up your desktop to span multiple monitors using many of the GUI tools available, and feel the developers should change the default install to reflect your inabilities? Boo-hoo.
No, you don't "wonder". You assume that it's illegal to share, and apparently you want the rest of us to do so as well. If you would have been curious, you could easily have clicked on the books and found out that they are all free to share, like information should be.
c++;
May fortune shine on these efforts to flatten out the learning curve.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
While on your side in your flame, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Ignoring Vista for one minute with its compulsory driver signing, etc., XP has a remarkably good support for hardware because...all mass-market vendors will necessarily write drivers for Windows, but not for Linux. I've been using Linux for 10+ years, since the days when Slackware was the most "user-friendly", and until Ubuntu 8.04, I was still wrapping Windows wireless drivers in ndiswrapper, my laptop sound refused to work in spite of all the forum workarounds and my cheap Chinese-made webcam was flat out not recognized. And this was on a stock $500 Toshiba laptop. Most of those are now solved, but it was never an issue with XP.
Of course, this says nothing about XP being "superior" to Linux from a technology point of view -- just that hardware vendors are going to release win drivers and might release linux drivers.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
After looking at all that, am I the only one who is sorta taken by how complicated it is, and under the impression I am looking at the various complications of a four barrel carburetor?
(Before anyone makes the "Big Three" jokes, I have friends who say that really GM/DC/Ford are much more like the Hells Angels than a pack of Greasers. They don't really sit around at Arnold's diner, they just show up with guns and take what they want.
Fixed... I think. We still use car analogies here at Slashdot, right??
XP has a remarkably good support for x86 hardware
Fixed that for you.
Linux run on a LOT more devices than Windows can. Microsoft's a lot like Apple that way. The limited subset of computers designed for their OS are well-supported, but forget about running the OS on any exotic hardware.
Look how long it took them to get it running on the OLPC.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Can you point to some of these NDA's you speak of? Because, I have to wonder how you can have an NDA on something that anyone can go to your website and download the source code for.
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
For a person that learns visually, a map like this is biggest gift any opensource community has given me. If only everything could have a map, then atleast people can explore and learn at their own pace in a much easier way.
I don't know of any examples, but it isn't unheard of where Linux developers sign an NDA with a company to get documentation in order to write an open driver. The company allows the code to be disclosed, but not the documents that were used to develop the code.
not yet