Slashdot Mirror


Kernel Contributor Corbet Says Linux Community Is 'Intimidating'

An anonymous reader writes "Key Linux kernel contributor Jonathan Corbet has admitted the developer community can be intimidating and hard to break into. He highlighted the issue during his Linux.conf.au presentation on the Linux kernel. Corbet expressed concern about the exclusivity of the kernel community, but says it's doing well regardless. He said in a period of just over a year, 55,000 individual changes from 2,700 developers (representing 370 employers) were made to the kernel, equaling 2.8 million lines of code. Corbet called the process 'alive and active.'"

177 comments

  1. Intimidating... by AmericanGladiator · · Score: 1

    Job interviews are also intimidating - but highly worth it.

    1. Re:Intimidating... by negRo_slim · · Score: 0, Troll

      Bashing Windows for code bloat are also interesting - but highly hypocritical.

      --
      On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
    2. Re:Intimidating... by naveenkumar.s · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Linux kernel codebase is bloated, but very flexible. Code from the same codebase runs on home WiFi routers with 4MB of RAM and on some of the largest supercomputers and mainframes. You can't say that about the Windows codebase.

    3. Re:Intimidating... by init100 · · Score: 1

      and on some of the largest supercomputers

      Not to diminish anything about the Linux kernel, but many of the largest supercomputers are just very large groups of pretty ordinary rack or blade servers, interconnected by special high-performance low-latency networks. I'd say that the (hardware) difference between a wireless router and a home PC is far bigger than the difference between a home PC and a compute cluster node.

    4. Re:Intimidating... by Xest · · Score: 1

      That really depends, in some cases if you run an intimidating job interview you may risk pushing away people with the qualities you require.

      Intimidating job interviews risk pushing away people who are technically brilliant, but not socially brilliant. That doesn't mean they can't communicate, but it might mean that under pressure of intimidation, something they wouldn't usually suffer in the normal workplace (well, that they shouldn't- if they do it's a shit workplace anyway) that they will struggle and not be able to show their best. What you will get though is a lot of mediocre people who can talk the talk but not walk the walk, if you're really lucky you may get people who are capable of both, but is it worth the gamble? Of course all things in moderation of course- on the other side of it there are some people that are simply too quiet and wont communicate anything which can be problematic in itself unless the role really is one that doesn't need communication.

      It's best to make the candidates feel comfortable, give them the opportunity to show what they can do in a more friendly environment where they feel confident enough to open up and show off their true abilities. In some roles you may prefer the more sociable people, for example, in customer facing jobs, but for kernel development? it'd be stupid to scare off some brilliant but shy people and just risk filling the team with mouthy incompetent developers that sounded good in their interview because they weren't scared off by intimidation but couldn't deliver in the job.

  2. Breaking into the asylum is... by AthleteMusicianNerd · · Score: 1

    intimidating too.

    1. Re:Breaking into the asylum is... by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Funny

      an incomplete sentence

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  3. sabotage by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 0, Troll

    More accessible means more vulnerable.

    1. Re:sabotage by buswolley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you against opensource then?

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    2. Re:sabotage by HermMunster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Only one time have I read about someone inserting code that was malicious into the project. That code was automatically identified by the tools used to analyze it. As far as vulnerable, wall that's really a hype word used by neuroelectronic. What he believes is that the code just gets dumped into the kitty and is used automatically. No, it is not, it goes through a very thorough review process before it is even accepted, then it is edited to comply.

      That's just FUD on your part dude.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    3. Re:sabotage by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the SSL bug in Debian never happened, and was caught before it was released due to all the "scrutiny" of the review process. I am not claiming it happens all the time, just that it happens more than "never".

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    4. Re:sabotage by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      Never was never used, hehe.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    5. Re:sabotage by Neuroelectronic · · Score: 0

      Depends on your definition of "opensource"

    6. Re:sabotage by xiong.chiamiov · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the SSL bug in Debian never happened, and was caught before it was released due to all the "scrutiny" of the review process. I am not claiming it happens all the time, just that it happens more than "never".

      It would have been caught if he submitted it upstream to the actual software, rather than just applying it in his private fork (that he happens to share with a bunch of people).

      Monkey-patching is different from software development.

    7. Re:sabotage by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, and the SSL bug in Debian never happened ..."

      Nobody claimed that all FOSS software is bug free. The discussion was about injection of malicious code, and it was claimed that it can and has happened, but almost never.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  4. really? by nomadic · · Score: 4, Funny
    1. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Since that page is dead; this is what it says:)

      The Twelve Least Surprising AP Headlines
      by Lore Sjöberg
      (All are actual AP wire headlines.)

      Boy Scouts Gather for Jamboree
      Teens May Be Lured by Sweet Booze
      Copter Crash Victims To Be Buried
      Heartache, Despair Thrive in Las Vegas
      Pearl Harbor Veterans Tell Stories
      Symphony to Feature Foreign Composers
      Sarah Hughes Honored in Hometown
      Cold Front May Break Heat Wave
      Cuban Migrants Try to Reach Fla.
      Study: Truck Wrecks Deadly for Kids
      Colorado Lt. Gov. Has Documents
      Twentysomethings Leaving Wisconsin

  5. Kolivas knows it best by recoiledsnake · · Score: 3, Informative

    He tried to break into the clique, but Linus preferred someone he knew who essential ripped off Kolivas' work instead of someone that did all the hard work.

    http://apcmag.com/why_i_quit_kernel_developer_con_kolivas.htm

    http://apcmag.com/why_i_quit_kernel_developer_con_kolivas.htm

    --
    This space for rent.
    1. Re:Kolivas knows it best by elloGov · · Score: 1

      Very interesting interview, thanks for sharing. Knowing little about Kernel Development Community, Kolivas viewpoint shines light on a variety of short-comings of the community.

    2. Re:Kolivas knows it best by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      Glad you enjoyed it. The initial flamebait moderation made me think it would be buried. Thanks to your sibling poster.

      And Con Kolivas didn't completely quit. He made a comeback of sorts with the Brain Fsck Scheduler. http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/bfs-faq.txt

      I guess kernel development is too addictive to quit.

      --
      This space for rent.
    3. Re:Kolivas knows it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kolivas' complaints about the Linux kernel community regarding scheduling reminds me of Linus' complaints to Tannenbaum regarding Minix

    4. Re:Kolivas knows it best by droopycom · · Score: 1

      Yet Linus reaction was to create his own kernel.

      While Kolivas reaction was to give up kernel development.

    5. Re:Kolivas knows it best by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      Yet Linus reaction was to create his own kernel.

      While Kolivas reaction was to give up kernel development.

      Wrong .He still does kernel development, with his own patches, just like Linus made his own kernel.

      http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/09/06/0433209/Con-Kolivas-Returns-With-a-Desktop-Oriented-Linux-Scheduler?from=rss

      http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/bfs-faq.txt

      --
      This space for rent.
    6. Re:Kolivas knows it best by rochberg · · Score: 1

      ...and your point would be...? Linus went on to create his own kernel while he was a graduate student in computer science . If you read the article, you'd know that Kolivas works as an anaesthetist, and did kernel hacking solely as a hobby. For an operating system that relies on volunteers and hobbyists, the Kolivas incident serves as a pretty bad precedent.

    7. Re:Kolivas knows it best by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      For an operating system that relies on volunteers and hobbyists, the Kolivas incident serves as a pretty bad precedent.

      Dunno. The impression I have is that the primary kernel workers are employed to do just that.

    8. Re:Kolivas knows it best by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "He tried to break into the clique, but Linus preferred someone he knew who essential ripped off Kolivas' work instead of someone that did all the hard work."

      Yeah. Either that or he wasn't accepted because he is a wining bitch with whom people with a clue don't like to work. There are three sides to every story: Side A, Side B, and what really happened. Your post is at best misinformative. I have no vested interest in either side per se, but having read the E-Mails from the Linux Kernel mailing list (which evidently makes one of us) I tend to agree with the side I just identified.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    9. Re:Kolivas knows it best by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Glad you enjoyed it. The initial flamebait moderation made me think it would be buried."

      Everything you write runs the danger of being read. Your post being more conspicous is far from something you should wear as a badge of honour. When 5 misinformed people mod a post as informitive, it makes cluelessness much more visible to all whom have a clue. Also, you are assuming that people agree with you, rather than that they are just modding up the link so people can see one side of the story. There is a reason why it is not labeled: +1: this guy is correct in his opinion.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    10. Re:Kolivas knows it best by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      I have no vested interest in either side per se, but having read the E-Mails from the Linux Kernel mailing list (which evidently makes one of us) I tend to agree with the side I just identified.

      Maybe read this then:

      http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=257075&cid=20028005

      --
      This space for rent.
    11. Re:Kolivas knows it best by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      OK. I read it, and in order to fully believe it is the one and right truth I have to believe Ingo Molnar is so stupid he would take someones work already publicly discussed and call it his own, which isn't waht happened. Frankly, the very suggestion is patently absurd.

      I'm not saying that things couldn't have been handled better on both sides . I am saying that there are two sides, and I have yet to see an accurate rendering of the what really happened. The post you linked to certainly wasn't it.

      Frankly, the whole thing is ridiculous, but not quite as ridiculous as it would be for you and I to do anything other than agree to disagree with a matter that is really none of our business to begin with.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    12. Re:Kolivas knows it best by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      One more thing I forgot to mention. This whole "article" (on Slashdot, not the original) is one big troll. They may as well have said: OMFPonies! MIT President admits it is not easy to get into MIT!

      It is hard to become one of the best and be accepted and acknowleged as such. News at 11.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    13. Re:Kolivas knows it best by droopycom · · Score: 1

      The parent post was saying that Linus and Kolivas have similar attitudes based on the fact that they complained about something that somebody else was doing.

      I point out that that their attitude was very different based on the fact that their reaction was very different.

      The fact that Kolivas has a real job, while Linus was a computer student only reinforce my point, which is that you can comparing them is hardly fair.

      Its like saying my car reminds me of the space shuttle because they are both white.

    14. Re:Kolivas knows it best by droopycom · · Score: 1

      "Returns" mean that he left, so my point stands.

      In any case I'm not saying that Con is less worthy than Linus, or wasnt right to do what he did.

      The point is that comparing Kolivas and Torvalds is comparing apples and oranges.

  6. difficult? by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He is kind of right, but I would say the relative challenge of understanding the kernel code is far greater than the social challenge of getting involved. I mean, you can't expect to just sign up to lklm and say, "Hey guys, assign me a project!" Why would they even believe that you can handle it? As likely as not, you'll just make things worse. Start by understanding the code, doing some debugging, and once you are actually doing productive things, people will be more likely to believe you can do more productive things.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:difficult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I would say the relative challenge of understanding the kernel code is far greater than the social challenge of getting involved.

      I'd say you're not a real nerd.

    2. Re:difficult? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Well exactly. Just because you spent a weekend learning how, and then made your own personal changes in your spare time, doesn't mean you actually have the know-how to help on the project. The Linux Kernal has been around for some time, I'd bet a dollar or two that they have put a lot of work into making it work properly and efficiently. If they want to implement something new, they are going to go with the guys who know the ins and the outs to make things as efficient as possible. Its a slippery slope where it could be excluding people who have developed a new methodology, meaning they miss out on a great opportunity, but thats just a risk they don't want to take.

      It's the same as any industry. I'm not going to grab just any old guy to build my house. He could be an excellent carpenter - and maybe he'll even show me a few chairs and tables he has built. Superb as they may be, I'll still go with the guy who has built a house from start to finish.

    3. Re:difficult? by Angst+Badger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The larger problem here isn't that the Linux kernel group is exclusive -- though it probably does manage to deny itself (and its users) some good ideas as a result. It's that the FOSS world has developed a dominant monoculture that very definitely marginalizes alternative approaches that, both in the short term and in the long term, retards progress in other areas. Yes, there are FOSS alternatives to Linux, but we have arrived at a state where there is Linux, and then there is everything else. And that "everything else", excepting perhaps the *BSDs which are competitors in the Unix clone space rather than fundamental alternatives, generally lack maturity and application support.

      That's only an acceptable state of affairs if you think Unix (and Linux's implementation of Unix) represent some kind of final end state in OS development. This is by no means a criticism of Linux in and of itself -- it's a fine OS and I'm glad to have it -- but in terms both of user choice and advancing the state of the art, it's no more healthy to have Linux as the overwhelmingly dominant player in the FOSS world than it was to have Windows as the overwhelmingly dominant player in the broader PC world.

      Rather than fretting about getting into the inner sanctums of Linux development, more would be OS developers should be looking at the alternatives (or starting their own, if they have the vision for it). Most will fail, of course, but somewhere out there is a project that, like Linus Torvald's ambitious little toy *nix kernel all those years ago, will someday be a game changer. And even in failure, one learns a great deal -- perhaps enough that one might later find entry into more established circles easier.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    4. Re:difficult? by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

      I agree. You cant just jump in and write code until you prove that you know what your doing. And you may offer several patched that get rejected because the form of the change is incorrect. If your competent and really want to make a change you will keep at it and eventually get in.

      I can't think of a more perfect system. I have done this on several open source projects. Typically though you are not just looking for work. You are looking to get something fixed that no one else seems to care much about. I don't know how it would work for someone just wanting to write code.

    5. Re:difficult? by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      http://www.jnode.org/

      Something I'm actually trying to work with as part of larger unified/cloud computing infrastructure.

    6. Re:difficult? by ClosedSource · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "That's only an acceptable state of affairs if you think Unix (and Linux's implementation of Unix) represent some kind of final end state in OS development."

      I agree. The problem is that geeks are too hidebound to support truly new things. Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?

      In the case of UNIX, there are those who think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, but since they weren't on earth when it was created they can't differentiate between its good ideas and those that were adopted because of the limitations of that era.

      It's a bit like those who believe that black-and-white movies are more artistic just because they're black-and-white. Many of those movies would have been made in color if that had been a feasible option.

    7. Re:difficult? by digitig · · Score: 1

      He is kind of right, but I would say the relative challenge of understanding the kernel code is far greater than the social challenge of getting involved. I mean, you can't expect to just sign up to lklm and say, "Hey guys, assign me a project!" Why would they even believe that you can handle it?

      So they assign you to documenting something. If you do it, it shows you at least understand what's going on, and the project has gained that rarest of open-source comoddities, documentation. If you fail, you've not broken anything so it's pretty much just your own time you've wasted.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    8. Re:difficult? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is also a reflexive defensiveness in the FOSS community that tends to scare aware any but the hardiest. Check out any post on /. that dares criticize GIMP's horrid UI, or points out how intimidating Linux's continued reliance on the command line is to the average user--then watch the series of flames that follow even these benign criticisms. Now imagine trying to offer contructive criticism to a group of people who are even MORE dedicated to Linux and FOSS than even the average /. user. I would rather walk into the meanest bar in Boston with a "Red Sox Suck!" t-shirt on than to post even a slight criticism of the existing kernal on lklm. It's WAY too personal for those guys.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:difficult? by nametaken · · Score: 1

      Absolutely agree, and we saw a great example of this recently.

      There was a /. article about ReactOS, and I saw more than a few "OMGWTF... why work on your project? Work on Wine instead!"

      I heart what Linux has become, but I love to see people do all kinds of crazy, maybe game changing stuff too.

    10. Re:difficult? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The problem is that geeks are too hidebound to support truly new things. Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?

      What does it have to do with geek preferences? JavaScript, Java and C# all used curly braces not for the sake of geeks - who can and do learn new things - but for the sake of monkey coders who knew the previous dominant language (C++ for Java, Java for C#, etc).

    11. Re:difficult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?

      Because C syntax is awesome. More importantly, if your language is imperative, odds are your syntax can be C-like, and choosing a C-like syntax will make it easier for people to learn the language, and this allows to language to be succesful.

      The above does not really apply if you use a different programming paradigm, e.g. Haskell.

    12. Re:difficult? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Because C syntax is awesome"

      Sure. Do you know what "=+" is?

      "More importantly, if your language is imperative, odds are your syntax can be C-like, and choosing a C-like syntax will make it easier for people to learn the language, and this allows to language to be succesful."

      Which is a long way to say the developers are hidebound.

    13. Re:difficult? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure there can be a distinction between geeks and "monkey coders". Most developers who think some aspects of development are beneath them don't stick around very long.

    14. Re:difficult? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      There is also a reflexive defensiveness in the anti-F/OSS community that tends to malign F/OSS. Check out any post on /. that discusses good things about Linux GUIs - it will provoke idiotic statements that Linux needs the command line in normal functioning. Check out any post on /. that discusses F/OSS alternatives - it will provoke complaints about the GIMP's UI, and reveal the naive belief that Microsoft Word is compatible with different versions of itself, or for that matter the same version with a different printer. Heck, check out any post that dares to criticize the MS ribbon interface, and the reactions. I would rather you walk into the meanest bar in Boston with a "Red Sox Suck!" t-shirt on than criticize Linux on the basis of ten-year-old attitudes.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    15. Re:difficult? by grcumb · · Score: 3, Insightful

      [T]he FOSS world has developed a dominant monoculture that very definitely marginalizes alternative approaches that, both in the short term and in the long term, retards progress in other areas.

      How do you support this assertion? You seem to be implying that there's only one kernel, but the fact of the matter is that this is only nominally true. There is one kernel stack, yes, but its permutations are almost beyond count. It runs on literally thousands of different hardware devices. Even the major distros all roll their own. So the kernel, while nominally monolithic, varies considerably in practice.

      One of the defining characteristics of a monoculture is that it's susceptible to system-wide compromise. In short, if you can hack one instance of the monoculture, you can hack them all. That is arguably untrue of the Linux kernel. There are so many different implementations that systemic compromise becomes almost impossible. Conversely (and almost ironically), the kernel does possess one often overlooked strength of monoculture: As long as the core commonality remains strong, the system at large remains healthy. Small, targeted patches can propagate quickly.

      It's peculiar and counter-intuitive, I realise, but experience teaches us that the Linux kernel seems to have few of the weaknesses of a classic monoculture while retaining many of its strengths.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    16. Re:difficult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. The problem is that geeks are too hidebound to support truly new things. Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?

      Because a lot of people know "C" syntax. If your new language can incorporate some new features, but still retain a syntax that is familiar to most programmers, it'll be more successful.

      It's a bit like those who believe that black-and-white movies are more artistic just because they're black-and-white. Many of those movies would have been made in color if that had been a feasible option.

      Limitations (like lack of colour) lead people to try and improve in other areas. I wouldn't be surprised to discover black-and-white films to have, on average, better . But, I dunno, I think experience counts for a lot too...

    17. Re:difficult? by lennier · · Score: 1

      "a long way to say the developers are hidebound."

      I think the virtue you're looking for is 'lazy'.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    18. Re:difficult? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      That works too.

    19. Re:difficult? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure there can be a distinction between geeks and "monkey coders". Most developers who think some aspects of development are beneath them don't stick around very long.

      The distinction is not in aspects of development in which one is involved, but in the fundamental approach to them. At a very simplified level, a code monkey is someone who learned something specific, while a geek is someone who learned to learn things in general.

    20. Re:difficult? by P-Nuts · · Score: 1

      Sure. Do you know what "=+" is?

      Assignment followed by Unary Plus. Tokenization is greedy and left-to-right. The precedence rules may take a bit of thinking, but tokenization is pretty simple.

    21. Re:difficult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes! The typical F/OSS rebuttal.

      "Don't look at us! Look at Microsoft!"

      What would you freetards do if there wasn't a closed source scapegoat and you actually had to face the criticisms of your community?

      The attitude of always having to cry about Microsoft is part of what makes me feel that the F/OSS community just can't hang. Even another blurb on the front page of /. about open source immediately has to rip on MicroSoft even though the article in question has nothing to do with MicroSoft.

      So tell me, if MS is crap and everything associated with it is crap why do you keep having to point fingers at it as if MicroSoft is the problem? I thought you guys could all do without MS and they were irrelevant? When are you going to start walking the walk of your boasts?

      I dare the F/OSS community to have a conversation that is critical of the short falls of their projects without having to run back to their security blanket of MicroSoft bashing.

      The F/OSS community is a joke. They can't even stand behind their own projects with an honest word so they need to endlessly beat on others for their own failings.

    22. Re:difficult? by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      There is one kernel stack, yes, but its permutations are almost beyond count. It runs on literally thousands of different hardware devices. Even the major distros all roll their own. So the kernel, while nominally monolithic, varies considerably in practice.

      There's only one peanut butter section at the grocery store, and it conforms to the almost infinite variations in the surface texture of different slices of bread. But it's still peanut butter, and you are out of luck if you'd like a ham sandwich, or maybe a bowl of soup. If you look at anything closely enough, whether it's Linux kernels or some sub-sub-sub-genre of dance music, you'll see endless variation. Granted, those variations are mostly inconsequential, but that's the danger with tunnel vision.

      One of the defining characteristics of a monoculture is that it's susceptible to system-wide compromise. In short, if you can hack one instance of the monoculture, you can hack them all. That is arguably untrue of the Linux kernel.

      If system security (or any other Linux strength) is the only thing you care about, then Linux is perfect. But that's ultimately a tautology. Of course Linux rocks in terms of the things that Linux admirers admire. The problem is that over time -- and I'd argue that we have to some extent reached this point -- the sheer mass of the system is self-reinforcing, and everything new has to be fit into the existing structure or be discarded, and as great as Linux is, there are many imagined and yet-to-be-imagined things that will not fit into the existing structure because they require a fundamentally different framework.

      [...] experience teaches us that the Linux kernel seems to have few of the weaknesses of a classic monoculture while retaining many of its strengths.

      I'll grant you that Linux has avoided many of traditional monoculture problems, but I suspect that has a lot more to do with the FOSS culture of which it is part than anything else. Being driven by people whose first concern is the quality of their product rather than profit opens up all kinds of possibilities that are simply denied to commercial, closed-source software, and the focus of Linux developers on fixing problems instead of polishing their PR is part of that. The shortcoming of monocultures that concerns me here -- that they tend, by their sheer size and inertia, to stifle innovation -- is no less true of Linux's role in the FOSS ecosystem than it is of any other monoculture.

      Again, let me reiterate that I use and enjoy Linux and I'm tremendously grateful to the many people who have helped make it what it is today. My only concern is that it is not -- and cannot be -- a universal solution, and we would all benefit from redirecting some of the community's energy toward exploring new territory. Moreover, since there are far more people who are qualified and willing to work on the kernel than the process can accommodate, Linux development need not suffer any brain drain as a side effect.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    23. Re:difficult? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      People learn things in general from learning a number of specific things. Besides geeks are known to be interested in details that other people aren't interested in.

    24. Re:difficult? by neonsignal · · Score: 1

      You start talking about supporting "truly new things" and then you complain about syntax? Changing language syntax is hardly innovative.

      Both the Linux kernel and the userland applications are mutating faster than any other operating system out there. Just because the POSIX interface is relatively stable doesn't mean that the the rest is anything like UNIX was in the 1970s.

      The main thing stopping other operating systems (such as BeOS) from becoming reasonable alternatives is the sheer amount of effort involved, especially in dealing with the range of hardware out there. The best way to lower this barrier is to support device manufacturers who open their specifications and follow international standards. Virtual machines are also lowering the barrier somewhat.

      I don't believe that you can produce any *nix geek who is unaware that Unix has its flaws. Defending the design decisions of Unix is not the same as thinking that it is the best way of doing things.

      The concern about the lack of choice is valid, but it won't be solved by whining about it.

    25. Re:difficult? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      More importantly it's the original syntax for what we now know as "+=". Rather than abandoning a mediocre idea when it created ambiguous parsing, it was changed to it's current ugly form.

      Then again, C was developed during the teletype era, so saving a few characters might have seemed like a great idea. Today, not so much.

    26. Re:difficult? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "You start talking about supporting "truly new things" and then you complain about syntax? Changing language syntax is hardly innovative. "

      It wasn't intended as an example of an area of innovation but an example of not wanting to try new things.

      "The main thing stopping other operating systems (such as BeOS) from becoming reasonable alternatives is the sheer amount of effort involved, especially in dealing with the range of hardware out there."

      OSs rarely start as multi-platform projects - certainly UNIX didn't. If it offers real value, it will be ported.

    27. Re:difficult? by Nostradongus · · Score: 1

      Check out any post on /. that dares criticize GIMP's horrid UI, or points out how intimidating Linux's continued reliance on the command line is to the average user.

      This is why Linux (in its current state) will never be widely accepted by the average user. This is an area where OSX has succeeded and every Linux distribution up until now has failed. It's the rule of mum: If your mum can't use it, then it's far too complex.

    28. Re:difficult? by Alioth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As an experiment, about a year ago I installed Ubuntu on my PC (complete with proprietary nvidia 3D card), to see if I could:

      * set it up so I could install 3D games
      * set it up to play MP3 files
      * set it up to play DVDs and random MP4 videos
      * do the common usery things (read email, browse the web, play YouTube videos)

      without using the command line.

      The experiment showed it was entirely possible, and indeed - easy. Much easier than installing Windows. Even the nvidia driver installed over the net - Ubuntu simply prompted me "Do you want to install the proprietary nvidia drivers?" after first boot.

      Linux doesn't have a "continued dependence on the command line" at least for anything a normal user does. If you complain that administration needs a command line, it does on Windows as well - there are many tasks on Windows Server that can only be accomplished via the command line and enough things on the Windows desktop that at least need hacking the registry.

      Perhaps 5 years ago this criticism was valid, but it's not now with supported hardware.

    29. Re:difficult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      every Linux distribution up until now has failed. It's the rule of mum: If your mum can't use it, then it's far too complex.

      My wife had never touched keyboard before I introduced her to Linux. Now she uses it every day with no problems at all. Just about anyone can use Linux, Mac OS or Windows for basic tasks, mostly browser based. If this 'Mum' you're talking about uses a browser, plays flash games, emails, and does a little light Office type stuff, then her experience will be almost identical on any OS.

      If you mean "install, configure, maintain" as opposed to "use" then I'd agree Linux is too difficult for most people. So is Windows. But don't pretend that the OS really matters at all for 99.9% of everyday novice-type use.

    30. Re:difficult? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      It's true that it's definitely getting better, particularly in Ubuntu. But even now, it doesn't take much digging beneath the hood before you have to resort to the command line. In the last version of Ubuntu I used (admittedly not the most recent), I had to edit the Xorg config file to get dual monitor support and proper screen resolutions, for example (I understand that newer versions support resolution changes in the GUI, not sure about dual monitor). For most conventional uses and setups, the GUI is probably enough now. But even Ubuntu is still just a GUI kludge sitting on top of a kernal that's built for the command line.

      In all fairness, Windows used to be the same way (had to still go out to DOS to get some things done right). But that was over 10 years ago. I can't remember the last time I had to open up a console in Windows for anything other than a novelty ("Hey, it's still there!").

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    31. Re:difficult? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the typical Microsoftie rebuttal.

      If you hadn't noticed, I took the anti-F/OSS diatribe from the article before me, and substituted equivalent claims. I wasn't introducing any new form of argument or rebuttal, I was just copying a Microsoft fan. I do appreciate you calling it a typical F/OSS rebuttal, since you're validating my point that Microsofties can be just as stupid and offensive as anybody else.

      Tell me, what would you MStards do if there wasn't an array of open source scapegoats?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Not news by RemoWilliams84 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Linux elitests are jerks, news at 11.

    --
    "I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
    1. Re:Not news by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Elitists are jerks, news at 11.

      There, fixed that for you...

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    2. Re:Not news by Goodgerster · · Score: 1

      A new study says that illiterate people overgeneralise more easily: we'll have the full story and the latest news and weather. Join Fiona Bruce and I with the News at 10.

    3. Re:Not news by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Elitists are jerks, news at 11. There, fixed that for you...

      You're shouting in the wind. Yeah, they can be jerks. Now what? When a select few are the only ones who can perform a certain task, well, don't be surprised the next time you call a archetypal programmer a jerk he refuses to write that critical code section your million-dollar product so desperately needs.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    4. Re:Not news by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "When a select few are the only ones who can perform a certain task.."

      I thought we were talking about software development. Are there certain processor op codes that only a select few developers know about?

    5. Re:Not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they're called undocumented op codes. Software that uses them tends to crash on newer processors.

    6. Re:Not news by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Ask your grandmother, apparently she codes. Or your high school janitor. I guess in your world anyone and every one has the mad skilz.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    7. Re:Not news by jra · · Score: 1

      Not all elitists are jerks.

      Robert Heinlein was quoted years ago -- in the person of Lazarus Long in the Notebooks, I think -- as questioning: someone has to drive. Should that not be the best driver?

      I concur in the opinion noted elsewhere in this thread that the elitism is *directly* responsible for the overall high quality of the Linux kernel?

      Is it perfect code? Of course not.

      Does the elitism have side effects? Of course?

      is the price worth paying? Well, that's a question of externalities, and difficult to answer: it's worth it to *me* that *potential kernel developers* have to pay that price, yes. :-)

    8. Re:Not news by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Actually, my late cousin was coding when I was a child (and I'm in my fifties, so you do the math).

      But no, I don't think everybody has "mad skilz" but that's a far cry from suggesting that only a handful of people would be capable of being a Linux kernel developer. More like thousands.

      That doesn't mean that the maintainers should be required to open their club, it's just that there's no real connection between elitism and skill.

    9. Re:Not news by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "Not all elitists are jerks."

      Perhaps you have a different definition of "elitist" than I do. It's an attitude, not a measure of skill.

      Just because a group is selective, doesn't make them elitist.

    10. Re:Not news by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand, he spelled Elitist wrong. :-)

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  8. Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating by jra · · Score: 4, Informative

    hard to break into.

    There, fixed that for ya.

    And let's note Jon knows whereof he speaks; he's not just the Editor/Publisher of the almost-10 year old LWN, he's also a fairly well-respected device driver author.

    1. Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating by jra · · Score: 1

      FWIW, though, this is true of *all* large codebases: if you're not willing to get married to the entire 400KLOC, then if can be hard becoming a contributor just because there's often a "right" place and way add functionality, and it won't be obvious to a newbie; I'm having the problem myself with Asterisk and the associate FreePBX project just now.

      And just imagine trying to get things done with Firefox.

    2. Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the non-kernel Linux community?

    3. Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What the h--- is the "kernel" community? Are we talking about popcorn farmers? No. It's the Linux (development) community, like the article says.

      BTW, HTH is this marked informative?

    4. Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to step all over your lame attempt at humor, but if you only work on the kernel, you are part of the "kernel community". Linux development is broad and you could be working on any small part of the large Linux project. If you specifically work on the kernel, then you are a "kernel developer".

    5. Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating by recoiledsnake · · Score: 1

      What the h--- is the "kernel" community? Are we talking about popcorn farmers?

      You mean GNU/Popcorn farmers.

      --
      This space for rent.
    6. Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Well, it's certainly true of large codebases that aren't well designed. I don't think Asterisk is considered the poster boy for good structure.

    7. Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What the h--- is the "kernel" community? Are we talking about popcorn farmers?

      http://kernel.org/

      Note that it doesn't say "Linux" in the URL anywhere. Some things should be obvious in a given place and time - especially on Slashdot.

    8. Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux = Kernel. If he meant anything else he would have said Ubuntu.

    9. Re:Corbet says *Kernel* community intimidating by jra · · Score: 1

      I didn't suggest it was. But it's equally true of Nagios, WebGUI, Firefox, Zimbra, and damned near every other sizable FOSS project I've ever been near.

      Design intake is a *massive* job for a potential new coder with a *specific target* (as opposed to someone who just wanders in, likes the hobby horse, and wants to help).

  9. I fault the internet by BobMcD · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think this is necessarily a flaw in Linux kernel development, because I've seen the same sort of thing all over every internet-based community. Think about the forums, chat rooms, and even discussions on this very site. 'Good' input is secondary to both 'loud' and 'popular', to the deficit of the community.

    Part of it is that the text removes a good deal of the context behind the words. To be sure...

    However I think there exists a general lack of morality/ethics/whatever in terms on internet communication. Never in a town hall meeting is it considered productive to shout that your opponents are "F~ING STUPID" and yet this tactic works exceedingly well on the internet. I assume that in person this behavior is taboo, but online anything goes. At a minimum you would pretend to listen and use some form of tactful technique to move forward. Online the aggressor seems to hope the opposing voices will simply stop participating in the conversation.

    Does anyone have any links to research or the like on this topic?

    Further, is there anything resembling Roberts Rules of Order for an online forum, email, etc?

    Back to the topic at hand, what if the Linux kernel developers held voice-based meetings on controversial topics? Or at least adopted a code of conduct that demanded civility?

    1. Re:I fault the internet by goldmaneye · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure it's limited to the Internet anymore ... recent footage of town hall meetings in the U.S. has convinced me that shouting "YOU ARE F~ING STUPID" is considered productive there as well.

    2. Re:I fault the internet by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Bollocks.

      If you think you can shout down your opponents with baseless ad hominem attacks you're probably browsing /b/, not a developer oriented mailing list. In fact, I'd go as far as claiming that internet communication is _BENEFICIAL_ in that it is impersonal. as that allows people to say what they really think about an issue instead of tip-toeing around the issue. And changing your mind is easier when you're not faced with the potentially very embarrassing situation of having people gloat at you face-to-face.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    3. Re:I fault the internet by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      There are actually correct. There have been several studies showing that group decisions are markedly improved when done over the Internet rather than face to face. The charisma of the individual holding a particular position is less of an influence over the Internet as opposed to face to face. This allows people to evaluate an argument on the merits of the argument rather than on the "likability" of the person making the argument.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:I fault the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that a joke? Did you really say BOLLOCKS to somebody who suggested that shouting down people sometimes happens on the internet?

    5. Re:I fault the internet by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      Further, is there anything resembling Roberts Rules of Order for an online forum, email, etc?

      I know the Debian developers vote on things sometimes, so they probably have something at least vaguely similar. But how much of the rules are about collision avoidance over a shared broadcast medium (ie, people in a room not talking over eachother), which wouldn't really apply to asynchronous communications like email and forums?

    6. Re:I fault the internet by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Out of curiosity, how do you weigh your bollocks against Torvalds/Kolivas square-off?

      http://linux.slashdot.org/story/07/07/28/1836247/Torvalds-Explains-Scheduler-Decision
      http://linux.slashdot.org/story/07/09/24/1210236/The-Linux-Identity-Crisis
      http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/09/06/0433209/Con-Kolivas-Returns-With-a-Desktop-Oriented-Linux-Scheduler

      IIRC, Torvalds behaved like a total tool in rejecting the idea, and another developer basically stole the concept and made his own implementation, which got accepted.

      Sounds like the same-ol'-same-ol' to me.

    7. Re:I fault the internet by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      Those people were ejected, though. And their conduct was labeled 'shameful' by many.

      I don't see that happen very much online.

    8. Re:I fault the internet by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

      'Good' input is secondary to both 'loud' and 'popular', to the deficit of the community.

      That's a very 'loud' and 'popular' point! ;)

    9. Re:I fault the internet by lennier · · Score: 1

      "Never in a town hall meeting is it considered productive to shout that your opponents are "F~ING STUPID" and yet this tactic works exceedingly well on the internet."

      I assume you've never watched the Australian parliament in session.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    10. Re:I fault the internet by BobMcD · · Score: 1

      In fact I have not. I'm somewhat surprised to hear you assert this, and will have to look it up.

    11. Re:I fault the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would u know the difference between good and bad? or even real and fake?

  10. Write good code? by toastar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You what's actually harder then Getting in the kernel community, Writing Good Kernel Code!

    1. Re:Write good code? by gertin · · Score: 1

      You what's actually harder then Getting in the kernel community, Writing Good Kernel Code!

      You accidentally the whole thing?

  11. Is this a question by Tetsujin · · Score: 4, Funny

    You what's actually harder then Getting in the kernel community, Writing Good Sentences!

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
    1. Re:Is this a question by toastar · · Score: 1

      Bah! Without an edit post feature I have no remorse.

    2. Re:Is this a question by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Bah! Without an edit post feature I have no remorse.

      XD Good point.

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    3. Re:Is this a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/then/than/

    4. Re:Is this a question by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      s/then/than/

      If you look closely, that's not the only error I copy/pasted from toastar's post... :)

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    5. Re:Is this a question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You what's actually harder then Getting in the kernel community, my d**k!

  12. And rightly so by erroneus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Linux kernel is not some hobbyist tinker toy. It is an extremely serious, mainstream and global-scale project. If it were more inclusive rather than exclusive, there would be MUCH risk in stability and security as I firmly believe that there would be attempts at installing exploitable code within the kernel. These types of problems have already occurred in F/OSS projects all over and we know that there are parties out there who are willing to to to GREAT lengths to accomplish their goals.

    With all this, I have little doubt that the present condition is for the best.

    1. Re:And rightly so by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If it were more inclusive rather than exclusive, there would be MUCH risk in stability and security as I firmly believe that there would be attempts at installing exploitable code within the kernel. These types of problems have already occurred in F/OSS projects all over and we know that there are parties out there who are willing to to to GREAT lengths to accomplish their goals.

      Please cite some examples of people exposed for becoming open source developers to install clever backdoors, since it's happening "all over". I smell FUD and imagine there's lot more hidden back doors in closed source projects, thank you. If someone's willing to go to great lengths, then it's not exactly a big obstacle to become a Microsoft (or whatever) employee.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:And rightly so by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember a back door injection into the Linux codebase a few years back. But that was accomplished not by a contributor (newbie or no) but by exploiting a vulnerability in the hierarchical code repository system, which they changes afterward. So there is at least one example of folks who will go to great lengths to install backdoor vulnerabilities in F/OSS. But unfortunately the example is with the Linux kernel itself which kind of disproves GP's point..

    3. Re:And rightly so by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember a back door injection into the Linux codebase a few years back. But that was accomplished not by a contributor (newbie or no) but by exploiting a vulnerability in the hierarchical code repository system, which they changes afterward.

      I remember that too, but then it's a different ballgame because whatever back door code is added has gone through no reviews, it's exactly the same as you could do with a closed source download server. It's probably easier with closed source in fact since they're often not signed, while Linux packages in general are so compromising a mirror won't help. Of course it won't help you if you are tricked into adding bad repositories, but that's a different threat.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:And rightly so by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      "The Linux kernel is not some hobbyist tinker toy."

      You're right. Linus probably played with Legos rather than Tinker Toys.

    5. Re:And rightly so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's one famous example.

    6. Re:And rightly so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd think you might be surprised how much software is signed in the Windows world. AuthentiCode signatures are pretty common in serious windows development. For example, the Lenovo Webcam software that come with my computer has a signature, as do virtually everything from Microsoft, Firefox, Chrome, Adobe Reader, etc.

      Now, would I notice if any of those applications had been striped of their digital signatures? I doubt it. Unless the applications check their own signatures, they would continue to function just as before, and I would see no visible difference.

      So the signatures provider much less of a security function than Linux digital signatures do, but there are still there, and anybody who has reason to suspect something is wrong can check for them.

  13. At least its open at all... by al3k · · Score: 1

    At least you can metaphorically break into the linux kernel at all, even just for your own fork to mess around. I would literally have to break into somewhere to look at windows code

    1. Re:At least its open at all... by afidel · · Score: 1

      *You* might have to break into somewhere but there are plenty of companies and academic institutions with access to the Windows source code. I'm not sure what the procedures are for submitting fixes is, if it's even possible, but it is out there.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    2. Re:At least its open at all... by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      If you pay enough, you are allowed to improve windows. Brilliant!

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    3. Re:At least its open at all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there are plenty of companies and academic institutions with access to the Windows source code.

      Which is close to useless in the context we're talking about. MS provide some, not all the code for *study* purposes. They don't provide the information necessary to compile it, so the only way you could change it would be to use the source to help you make binary zaps as opposed to proper source fixes. In no way is the Windows source a way into becoming a developer of Windows.

      Compare to the Linux Kernel. Anyone with the skill can download the entire source, compile it, patch it, replace the scheduler etc., package it as part of a forked distro, distribute it etc.

      Windows source code is an almost total irrelevance.

  14. A lot of changes for something that's "perfect" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > in a period of just over a year, 55,000 individual changes

    Is that new functionality or changes to existing code?

    I wonder how many changes per year something like Solaris or FreeBSD kernel have.

    Go ahead, mod me flamebait. It'll just confirm my suspicions. And ya know, sometimes the truth hurts.

    1. Re:A lot of changes for something that's "perfect" by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Remember, a single "patch" could change 10,000 lines of code.

    2. Re:A lot of changes for something that's "perfect" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      change != line-of-code

      And as an aside, my 2.6.16 kernel has ~85K lines of code. (`cd /usr/src/linux; find . -type f | xargs wc -l`)

      One change that touches 10K lines of code is touching 12% of the kernel. Yikes.

    3. Re:A lot of changes for something that's "perfect" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Follow up to my own post.

      85K LOC is clearly wrong. find/xargs is doing something funky.

      Same command on my 2.6.27 machine's kernel says >600K LOC.

    4. Re:A lot of changes for something that's "perfect" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A single new driver can easily add more than 10k lines. Current kernel line count (with staging included) is ~13 million.

  15. The more lines the better by lemur3 · · Score: 1

    Just think, if they have done this many lines with an intimidating atmosphere how many millions will be made with a friendly one!

  16. "Key contributor"? by diegocg · · Score: 1

    Corbet is the editor of LWN.net and has contributed some patches to the kernel, but i doubt he would accept to be called "key contributor". IMHO his best description would be "the best linux kernel journalist".

  17. please mod parent up by pikine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Flamebait, what the heck?

    --
    I once had a signature.
  18. Insane by HermMunster · · Score: 1

    In a good way.

    Wow that much activity from that many companies. 370 employees contributing!! Incredible the number of changes and the amount of code. This is tremendous. Open source success in this regard is truly fantastic.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  19. The sentence was... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 2, Informative

    begun in the subject line.

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  20. Too many changes anyway. by Animats · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If anything, the Linux kernel changes too much. It ought to settle down into a tight little kernel that's changed only for rare bug fixes. The "monolithic kernel" concept has gotten somewhat out of hand. Arguably, no USB device driver or printer driver should be in the kernel or have any significant privileges. That alone would cut way down on kernel mods.

    1. Re:Too many changes anyway. by cerberusss · · Score: 1

      If anything, the Linux kernel changes too much. It ought to settle down into a tight little kernel that's changed only for rare bug fixes.

      I don't understand what you mean by "changing too much". Why does it bother you that the Linux kernel changes? And why do you think that the changes take place deep in the core, and not in drivers, which can safely be ignored?

      I admin a few Linux machines, and one of them runs the same kernel for over two years. I regularly get upgrades from my distribution, which I review and then decide to ignore. The stability of these machines is dear to me, thus I don't upgrade the kernel unless there's a security risk.

      You're not backing up your complaints.

      --
      8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
    2. Re:Too many changes anyway. by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      I think I agree with you. I'd be willing to give up 5% of my performance to the overhead of a microkernel if it means my systems become rock-stable and any userspace program can become a driver.

    3. Re:Too many changes anyway. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 0

      Why do you always have to drag up the same tired arguments Tanenbaum?

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
    4. Re:Too many changes anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguably, no USB device driver or printer driver should be in the kernel or have any significant privileges. That alone would cut way down on kernel mods.

      Are you intentionally trolling or just uninformed? Someone made a very similar comment in a recent article.

      Linux handles printing completely in usermode. There is no printer support in the kernel. USB is mostly in usermode.

    5. Re:Too many changes anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . Arguably, no USB device driver or printer driver should be in the kernel or have any significant privileges. That alone would cut way down on kernel mods.

      No printer drivers reside in the Linux kernel. They are all found in user space.

    6. Re:Too many changes anyway. by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      "The fundamental result of access space separation is that you can't share data structures. That means that you can't share locking, it means that you must copy any shared data, and that in turn means that you have a much harder time handling coherency. All your algorithms basically end up being distributed algorithms. And anybody who tells you that distributed algorithms are "simpler" is just so full of sh*t that it's not even funny. Microkernels are much harder to write and maintain exactly because of this issue. You can do simple things easily - and in particular, you can do things where the information only passes in one direction quite easily, but anythign else is much much harder, because there is no "shared state" (by design). And in the absense of shared state, you have a hell of a lot of problems trying to make any decision that spans more than one entity in the system. And I'm not just saying that. This is a fact. It's a fact that has been shown in practice over and over again, not just in kernels. But it's been shown in operating systems too - and not just once. The whole "microkernels are simpler" argument is just bull, and it is clearly shown to be bull by the fact that whenever you compare the speed of development of a microkernel and a traditional kernel, the traditional kernel wins. By a huge amount, too. The whole argument that microkernels are somehow "more secure" or "more stable" is also total crap. The fact that each individual piece is simple and secure does not make the aggregate either simple or secure."

      If this were practical or secure, it would have been done already. "let's have a dumb kernel that does it all in userspace" has it's own set of larger problems.

    7. Re:Too many changes anyway. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I admin a few Linux machines

      IT pro in this thread! Sysadmins crack me up :D

  21. Just wait until you're in the community by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...then you can really get chewed out by Linus because you should have known better. It's not just from the outside it's a tough crowd all the way, but you also have to remember these people write the most key component of any good server. There are many places where having a developer, even if he's not the world's greatest is better than having none at all. The kernel isn't one of those places, if you can't take the heat then get out of the fire.

    Think of it more like chess, the rules are simple but the most effective implementation hard. Hell, I know a couple geeks who built their own OS, but I think the scheduling was just a round robin. Well a lot of bright people have thought quite a lot about it, and the kernel performs to some level. It's like a grandmaster chess player, he can't learn anything from a player ranked below 2000, it'll only be rehashing the same simple ideas and walking into the same traps that people have walked into before.

    Of course there's also the asshats that think that just because they know how to write an operating core, they're god's gift to mankind. But, I've run into those in quite a few other areas too...

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:Just wait until you're in the community by sennyk · · Score: 1

      What is your chess rating?

    2. Re:Just wait until you're in the community by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Right now 1824 but I've never made a real effort to become good or to only play when I'm in top shape to max my rating, I think well but I got no patience for reading up on openings, but I have beat both players and computers over 2000, particularly if they play gambits. I think my best was a draw against Chessmaster on a 2250 rating.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  22. Windows kernel community intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, "Lead Windows developer admits that the Windows kernel is an intimidating team to join at Microsoft. Among other challenges, contributors must go through a rigorous process where their academic and professional background is evaluated followed by an in-person grilling but top Windows engineers. Afterwards, the contributor must sign various legal papers before spending perhaps 3-4 years doing bug work and very simple tasks before being given the privilege of writing any significant portion of code."

    Seriously, the kernel is an important piece of code. If you want something to be added to it, it's going to be challenging both technically and professionally. It's not a bad thing. In most other areas, people would consider a highly selective screening criteria as part of the QA process for a product.

  23. So.. by armareum · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    was his.

    --
    Is this a rhetorical question?
    1. Re:So.. by cheftw · · Score: 1, Funny

      what?

      --
      Always back up, never back down. ---- Think you're cool 'cos your uid is prime? Take mine, modulo the one digit integers
  24. And why is that? by Jodka · · Score: 1

    the developer community can be intimidating and hard to break into.

    Well.. duh. Because you have to learn to program the Linux kernel to join.

    It is a "best of the best" club for programmers. Obviously that requires a lot of brains and effort. It should be hard to join, otherwise there would be a lot of crappy code in the kernel and Linux would suck.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  25. Groklaw is a pioneer in clean discussions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    PJ has at least 100 spare hands to do the kind of moderation she does.

    She really is a robot :-)

  26. The Fark version of the headline by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Kernel Contributor Corbet Says Linux Community Is 'Intimidating, Smelly'

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  27. It's part of the quality control by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The arrogance is intentional and deliberate. These people aren't getting paid for this, and simply don't have time to deal with noobs. Nor do they have time to screen patches from everyone who is trying to be helpful. Some intimidation is necessary to weed out those who aren't really serious and haven't made a concerted effort to fully understand the problem before contacting the kernel developers.

    Unix developers have always had an attitude, but in my experience they have been far more tolerant than Microsoft Developers (who insisted we rewrite all the Winsock2 code Intel was doing for them for free to better suit their revision control system) or that paragon of arrogance, the original SCO. When I worked for Amdahl UTS, one of my coworkers got the comment in his annual review that he "has little tolerance for mediocrity". Problem is, he thought this was a GOOD thing, while his manager was using it as a negative to justify a bare cost of living raise. Yes, they don't suffer fools easily, so make sure you do your homework first and get your facts straight before talking to them. Really, they are a lot like slashdot posters who rush to point out even the most minor mistakes in a post.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:It's part of the quality control by domatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      These days many *ARE* getting paid and answer to their bosses for the results of their work. But that is even more reason to have little patience for newbies who don't quite understand what is going on.

  28. Anyone anytime can modify Linux by MarkH · · Score: 1

    Only problem is getting your changes into the trunk.

    For that I am glad they are very picky.

  29. Re:That practice is... by Tetsujin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    really fucking annoying.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  30. Exclusivity not exclusive to kernel devs. by macraig · · Score: 1

    He can paint with a much broader brush than that, because the insular mindset extends well beyond just the kernel developers. I encounter it constantly in the Ubuntu and similar user forums as well. Groupthink is viral and highly contagious.

  31. The Loop... by PSandusky · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Something that I've always found interesting is the whole social structure that permeates different internet projects. In particular -- and I qualify this with nothing but my own paltry observations -- it's exceedingly difficult to break into anything that involves skill (particularly the programming sort) because not only is the existing structure built on skill, but it is also built on familiarity. If, say, Bob is well known for doing 'foo,' and you step in one day after cobbling around your own for a while and demonstrate that you're not half bad at 'foo' yourself, there's an exceedingly good chance that you'll fade into the noise unless Bob (or someone who speaks to Bob quite a bit about 'foo') notices what you've done and says something about it.

    At that point (absent of any response), the prospective developer has a few choices -- keep cobbling and work up some more 'foo,' and bring that into the light once it develops, seek out Bob to talk shop that he might let you in on some of the nuances that you may not have seen in development wishlists/buglists/etc., start clamoring over what he/she's already done in (erroneous) hope of getting recognition, or move on to developing 'bar.'

    Granted, I haven't done any Linux development yet, but that's what I've been seeing in other things. That whole breaking in process is difficult because those insecurities about people responding underwhelmingly (or negatively) to your work don't really go away, whether you're coding or doing scientific research. It may well benefit the Linux development community only to work with those who have the drive to continue despite those discouraging possibilities, but it won't necessarily be a huge recruitment tool to get people into developing in the first place.

    --
    "What's the use in being grown up if you can't be childish sometimes?" --Fourth Doctor, "Robot"
  32. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the fuck does he know?

  33. But you have to... by mweather · · Score: 1

    type something up there.

  34. Linux isnt intimidating by t3chn0n3rd · · Score: 0

    You should find most linux people friendly and willing to help learn. You might try joining a linux user group before taking on the kernel development. Here is a list of user groups http://www.linux.org/groups/ You have to remember the kernel development is difficult, some people have been programming for 10 or more years to get to that knowledge. You might try this steps in your linux knowlegde. 1) basic user 2) beginner 3) proficient use of applications 4) some programming 5) development 6) kernel programming

    1. Re:Linux isnt intimidating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Open source people are friendly and willing to take from a system but when it comes down to it the majority of the OSS advocates out there don't want to give back. Sure, it's a popular misconception that open source is about giving but most of them who are in it use it to take.

      They're great at learning as long as someone is providing the information but to share that with others who are also trying to learn? Forget that nonsense.

  35. I really don't think by RichardJenkins · · Score: 1

    it is!

  36. It's an annoyance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, super intimidating. every time i edit an article i immediately get reverted. oh, wait.

  37. Huh, C syntax? by jonaskoelker · · Score: 1

    Why does every successful new language have to use "C" syntax?

    You mean like python, ruby and Haskell?

    Also, what's gained just by being different? It's one thing to have different concepts that need new syntax simply because there isn't anything to copy. It's another thing to rehash an old concept with a different syntax, without any apparent purpose for the difference. Why "fix" what works?

  38. It's neat how if you omit the subject line... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    your message's meaning is inverted!

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  39. Is it hard to break into other kernel communities? by mitrevski · · Score: 1

    Would you say that it's difficult to break into the Microsoft Windows or Mac OS X kernel community?

  40. I don't get the problem: by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    It’s GIT. There is no central top of the hierarchy. Pull whatever you like into your own repository, add whatever patches you like, modify it, and distribute as you please.
    I have over a dozen alternative kernel mods for Linux available in the Gentoo package manager. I chose the one that fits me best. Done.

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  41. You should make an attempt... by joocemann · · Score: 1

    ... to get used to it. Mostly because it isn't going away, you will encounter it many times, and a better perception of it will better your life as it encounters these blips.

    The serenity prayer isn't just for the religious or substance abusers. It is actually pretty awesome. You don't have to know it or say it; just know the basic idea of it 'accept what I can't change'.

  42. p.P.P.ooo.P.o.P.pp.P..P...Pulseaudio by mrmeval · · Score: 1

    When the creator of something is an ass yet they manage somehow to keep hangers on coding crap and dazzling corprats into snorting their product I wonder what is good about 'free' software.

    I've used a linux based distribution since around 97, started with Slackware. It's gotten bad enough I'm getting tired of dealing with egos.

    I don't want to have to pay M$ for win7 but the audio and X server issues in Linux distributions are killers.

    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  43. But coders don't want criticism, they want code! by Johnny+Loves+Linux · · Score: 1

    I hear what you're saying, and an argument like this was made some years ago on osnews.com (a woman named Eugenia comes to mind.) But the thing is, these coder folks aren't coding a high school homework assignment, they're writing some seriously serious code. They don't need negative criticism --- they get a lot of that from shills, astroturfers, and trolls. And even constructive criticism like for example comments about "improving" the UI to gimp, while it might be genuine, and honest goodwill, and it might even be correct just isn't as valuable as the most important commidity of all to hackers: code. There is no substitute to good code.

    Yes, you can throw money at people to write F/OSS code and that's appreciated because it gives coders a chance to do something they love to do, but other than financial support for coders to write the code, the code itself is the most precious commodity. If there's a F/OSS application that you think stinks and could use some improvement as a service to yourself and to the F/OSS community take the time to study the code, and throw a patch at the developers. It doesn't have to be War-and-Peace sized, just a proof-of-concept patch would be heartily welcome. Really, you will get a chance to flex your coding muscles, you'll get a chance to feel good about performing a constructive act for the community *and* the F/OSS community will benefit from your generosity.

  44. Only on the kernel, you people are intimidating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It happens that, If you have a hardware that is not supported for the Linux community aka the same hardware that they buy or hack, they have a nice answer for you: "Waste your hardware and buy the same than me or WRITE THE DAMN DRIVER YOU N000000B!". Yes that's a lot of support from the community. I used SUSE and FEDORA CORE, and I needed to come back to Windows XP since I won't replace: Scanner, Digital Camera, Printer and Internet provider just to please the Linux Community. :P

  45. That's not true! by npsimons · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Linux community is very open and egalitarian! *Anyone* can get called an idiot for saying something stupid or posting a retarded patch!

  46. Re:But coders don't want criticism, they want code by jra · · Score: 1

    I'd rather have acceptable code implementing a really well thought out design, than lightning-fast really tiny code that implements an unmaintainable, unsupportable abortion of a design.

    Designers really do count for something, and some of us aren't first-class coders. We don't have to be; there are people who eat and breath code.

    But the one thing commercial software development has over *most* FOSS projects is that it has ways of evaulating designers, and then *placing them in charge of design*.

    Ask Fred Brooks about this, if you like; I'm sure he could tell you a few things about how important software system architecture is.

    Oh, wait; he already has.

  47. Ok, could we just by jra · · Score: 1

    quit this now?

  48. You shouldn't have by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    been modded informative. It was clear that tetsujin knew that and was making the point that doing so is stupid, except to make a point as he and I have done. Of course, the guy who did it doesn't know the difference between breaking into the asylum and breaking out of it, so we can't really hold him to the standards set by "normal" society ;-)

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  49. Re:I wish by Miseph · · Score: 1

    I knew how to quit you.

    --
    Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
  50. Re:Only on the kernel, you people are intimidating by sowth · · Score: 1

    So the antitrust efforts of Microsoft are the fault of OSS developers? If it wasn't for Microsoft, you'd have a choice of not only MSWin and Linux, but also OS/2, BeOS, and many others. Hardware manufacturers would have to create drivers for most operating systems if they wanted any decent market share, just like it was in the 1980s.

    I suppose during the bank bailouts you were complaining to your local banks about how they are assholes because they didn't defraud the government into giving them shitloads of taxpayer's money and how they don't give their executives multi-million dollar "bonuses."

    If a company manipulates the market to eliminate competition, how does this become the fault of those who try to compete?

    Whatever you say shithead. You are just a childish asshole who shits on whomever is most convenient when you don't get what you want. Then again, your views are so absurd, I have to wonder if you are some sort of Microsoft "missionary" trying to preach "the word" of the "one true OS."

  51. Accepting what I can't change is just a way to say by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    I give up

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  52. Re:Accepting what I can't change is just a way to by joocemann · · Score: 1

    I give up

    I can see that you're far to stubborn and far too egotistical to accept reality. I will accept that even you cannot see yourself in a position to accept things you cannot change... and thus I will accept that you probably won't change.

    Good luck with your stressful and annoyed life. You might avoid a few hemorrhoids if you bothered to listen to someone instead of think you're always right and spew silly snide comments akin to those ridiculous 'no fear' shirts.

    Laters.

  53. It's Fuck You Friday! (tomorrow...) by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    And you, what, are you going to live your life merely adjacent to the world, resigned to your impotence, determined to forever console yourself that things you disagree with are inherently beyond your influence?

    I'll stick to my plan, thanks.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  54. Mod parent down Re:difficult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No no no mods, parent is NOT insightful. Parent is irrelevant. Parent is clueless. Parent's examples completely miss the point. What the f*** is happening to /.? Are you all just pretenders? Fakers? Jocks pretending to be geeks?

    What does the parent propose one should do when your Linux install breaks? And sooner or later like everything else it will break unless you don't really use it. It's not uncommon that's it's broken straight out of the box depending on your hardware (be it new or old). When your chipset or other hardware isn't supported (or support is removed, it happens) and you have to compile the newest (or older) version of a program or kernel that supports it and it breaks other parts of the system so of course you must fix that next and then you get a kernel update which still hasn't fixed the issue and you have to do it all over again? Better get used to it (and yes it is still better than Windows).

    I use Ubuntu (not just "install and test" but real use as the primary system, posting this from an old w2k because the Ubuntu machine is busy with other more important stuff), if no problem ever arises I bet my neighbors dog could use Ubuntu and use it well but if a problem appears you will quickly be up to your neck and then some and there's no way in hell you can fix real issues without multiple sessions in the terminal (and hours on Google with the thinking hat on). If it's core stuff you'll even want to (and sometimes have no choice but to) actually reboot to make sure you solved it for good.

    So don't lie please, it does nobody any favors. Hell anyone can go have a look at the Ubuntu forum itself and get a clue.

    Or an even simpler example: you installed a program with the gui but you can't uninstall it using the same gui, happens.
    And another similar example: you want to install a program, it is in the repository but it is not available in the gui, not entirely uncommon either. If you just want pure TeX and LaTeX without insane amounts of bloat you might have to do it this way, gui won't help you get it on its own if you don't already have it (for example if you installed then uninstalled related bloatware from the repository). Plenty of small programs that aren't included in the distro that are only available using that old apt-get in the terminal.

    If you do actual work on your Ubuntu machine you should have experienced such examples as these many times.

    Ubuntu is good but it has a lot of "polishing" left (remember the 9.04 trash bin bug/icon crash anyone? Install and update a 9.04 and you'll see it's still there, how the hell did they miss that one anyways?). Debian seems to be a bit too conservative and Ubuntu seems to always be a little bit too rushed (and frankly the default selection of apps in Ubuntu sucks but that's easily remedied as long as you know what to get).

    And why the hell not push updates for the latest stable versions of core programs and packages? Why the hell are packages like Sun Java (IcedTea really isn't appropriate for some uses) not kept up to date as available from Sun? I've got to say that even though I like Ubuntu a lot I see why many business wouldn't want to switch away from Windows on the desktop when Linux distros make them jump through an awful lot of unnecessary hoops.

    Linux: always looking for something better (and yes I am a fan. "Linux" is far better than anything else except OpenBSD on the things that matter the most, but on the rest it still has a long way to go).

  55. Re:It's Fuck You Friday! (tomorrow...) by joocemann · · Score: 1

    And you, what, are you going to live your life merely adjacent to the world, resigned to your impotence, determined to forever console yourself that things you disagree with are inherently beyond your influence?

    I'll stick to my plan, thanks.

    See that is where you get it wrong. You probably didn't even read far enough into the advice to read or even know the serenity prayer. (I'm not even religious, so I just remove the God part of it).

    There is a bit about accomplishing what is possible, and another bit about having the wisdom to know when you should accept those that you cannot change.

    I don't just sit back and suck it. But unlike you, I can't stare at the blue sky and be upset about it forever. At some point I accept reality on things and learn to appreciate or at least tolerate that which I get as best as I can.

    But I lose in the "i look tough" department, huh? Good thing my friends aren't reading this... I might not look hard enough for them to respect me...

    Later, tough guy.
    In a blizzard you might freeze to death while I sit cozy, and accept the fact I should put on a jacket.

  56. Which printer drivers are in the Linux kernel? by Sits · · Score: 1

    To the best of my knowledge, most printer drivers are in CUPS (something similar happens for scanners with SANE) which is userland. There are plenty of USB widgets in the kernel but this seems to be mostly for devices that do no not conform to a standardised USB class (e.g. most usb pens will be handled with the existing mass storage driver).

    The majority of Linux kernel changes are to drivers but these are for new hard disk controllers, video cards, wifi cards and so forth. In fact I've just done a quick check on where the changes between 2.6.32 and 2.6.33-rc4 were and it looked like this:

          9.0% arch/arm/
        16.7% arch/
          3.2% drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/
          5.2% drivers/gpu/drm/
          4.0% drivers/media/
          4.5% drivers/net/wireless/
          8.1% drivers/net/
          3.6% drivers/staging/rt2860/common/
          7.4% drivers/staging/rt2860/
          4.3% drivers/staging/rt3090/common/
          9.4% drivers/staging/rt3090/
          4.5% drivers/staging/rtl8192u/
          8.5% drivers/staging/wlags49_h2/
        35.2% drivers/staging/
        66.1% drivers/
          6.1% firmware/

    Percentages are cumulative (drivers includes drivers/staging etc) and directories with less than 3% of the changes have been left out. So in this case most of the changes were to wifi driver, the ARM architecture and graphics driver bits.