This is a chance for an experiment in truly open source development. Create a Linux kernel CVS tree. Give read/write access to any and all anonymous users. Then anybody can fix any bug or add any feature. Yes, it would be somewhat anarachic, but there would be no scalability bottleneck (aka Linus T).
In this way, software components are opposite to mechanical devices: the more they are used, the more reliable they become.
Also, a reliable machine is composed of many duplicate, individually tested components. A well-factored software system does not contain any (or much) redudant or duplicate code!
I think he meant that revenue from 3Com NIC sales could help carry an unprofitable Palm OS division. Microsoft's cash cows like Office and Windows carry unprofitable products like IE or Windows CE. This is what allows Microsoft's shitty products to win in bloody battles of attrition.
they have money for development, then we'll see some great enhancements to the Palm OS, and I for one will welcome the change
And what are the great enhancements that should be added to the Palm OS? If Windows CE has some feature, it is called bloated PC legacy crap. If Palm OS adds a feature, it is considered an elegant, fundamanetal feature of pocket organizers.
Linux is heading even further away from the compiled-in drivers and to a more modular kernel. According to LWN [lwn.net], Alan Cox said that Linux 2.6 will not have compiled-in drivers. "Compiled-in" drivers will just be modules that are written to the "initramfs", a sort of software boot disk compiled into the kernel.
From: Alan Cox
To: babydr@baby-dragons.com (Mr. James W. Laferriere)
Subject: Re: ISA hardware discovery -- the elegant solution
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:08:32 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), esr@thyrsus.com, cate@debian.org (Giacomo Catenazzi),
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Linux Kernel List)
> Hello All , And what mechanism is going to be used for an -all-
> compiled in kernel ? Everyone and there brother is so enamoured
> of Modules . Not everyone uses nor will use modules .
For 2.5 if things go to plan there will be no such thing as a "compiled in"
driver. They simply are not needed with initramfs holding what were once the
"compiled in" modules.
According to LWN, Alan Cox said that Linux 2.6 will not have compiled-in modules.
From: Alan Cox
To: babydr@baby-dragons.com (Mr. James W. Laferriere)
Subject: Re: ISA hardware discovery -- the elegant solution
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:08:32 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), esr@thyrsus.com,
cate@debian.org (Giacomo Catenazzi),
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Linux Kernel List)
> Hello All , And what mechanism is going to be used for an -all-
> compiled in kernel ? Everyone and there brother is so enamoured
> of Modules . Not everyone uses nor will use modules .
For 2.5 if things go to plan there will be no such thing as a "compiled in"
driver. They simply are not needed with initramfs holding what were once the
"compiled in" modules.
BSD ppl are always praising the 'Unix Way' of small utilities that do a very defined job and nothing more, and hate the extended features that GNU utils provide; in this case it's BSD rm that is doing something that could be done by another tool by adding a flag! Horror!
Having two programs that both delete a file is not a very good example of the Unix Way. A better example would be to have one program that overwrites the file with random data (but does not delete/unlink it) and then a second program to delete/unlink the file.
Sun makes money from selling SPARC hardware. Companies buy SPARC hardware because they want Solaris. Sun obviously does not want to help Intel sell more x86 boxes. Claiming the Solaris x86 is taking time/money from Solaris SPARC is just a cover up.
Why do we want everyone's grandmother to be using Linux?
My grandma refuses to use Linux because its scheduler is O(n) and its "goodness" function can blow her L1 cache. If Linus adopts Ingo's O(1) scheduler, she just might reconsider.
How is a software company supposed to make money when it doesn't ship a product for four years? Short product schedules are not a problem. The problem is bad product management and vague or changing requirements.
Don't forget the other Butterfly Effect
on
Monsanto and PCBs
·
· Score: 1
you know, the one where the pollen from Monstanto GM corn kills Monarch butterflies.
I read that the Linux kernel developers are planning a number of kernel improvements to increase overall system reliability. Some of the minor updates include a completely new VM, new block IO layer, new VFS layer, new kernel NFS server, new device naming management, new SCSI lyaer, new IDE layer, and an in-kernel web server (khttpd and TUX) for improved system reliability.
Just like the similar complete rewrites in Linux 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4, Linux once again finally be a winning combination on the very high end!
For every little security flaw in each Windows "strain", Slashdot sounds the klaxons and warns of Microsoft's buggy code. But when there is a serious bug in some Unix NFS code, it's hidden in the BSD section or "proof" that the Open Sores security model is just doin' its job..
On 9/11 the airlines left the keys in the airplane, figuratively speaking. Then they took a loss and had to fix their security. If he wants to compare 9/11 attacks with software security, I think he better learn what to expect.
you mean Microsoft should expect a multi-billionaire dollar bailout package?
A major rewrite of the scheduler is planned for every new Linux kernel. Plus a rewrite of the VM, NFS, SCSI, VFS layer. Linux is getting greater all the time. That's why they have to keep rewriting it.
The NT kernel has not changed much since NT 3.51 in the earlier 90s, yet Linux is still losing benchmarks against NT.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a chance for an experiment in truly open source development. Create a Linux kernel CVS tree. Give read/write access to any and all anonymous users. Then anybody can fix any bug or add any feature. Yes, it would be somewhat anarachic, but there would be no scalability bottleneck (aka Linus T).
That some people might install FreeBSD 4.5 RC3 is no big deal. Most Slashdot users are used to using beta software, like Linux.
Three bikesheds,
What is a "bikeshed"?
In this way, software components are opposite to mechanical devices: the more they are used, the more reliable they become.
Also, a reliable machine is composed of many duplicate, individually tested components. A well-factored software system does not contain any (or much) redudant or duplicate code!
"Red Hat AOLinux, so easy to use, no wonder it's number one!!"
I think he meant that revenue from 3Com NIC sales could help carry an unprofitable Palm OS division. Microsoft's cash cows like Office and Windows carry unprofitable products like IE or Windows CE. This is what allows Microsoft's shitty products to win in bloody battles of attrition.
they have money for development, then we'll see some great enhancements to the Palm OS, and I for one will welcome the change
And what are the great enhancements that should be added to the Palm OS? If Windows CE has some feature, it is called bloated PC legacy crap. If Palm OS adds a feature, it is considered an elegant, fundamanetal feature of pocket organizers.
Linux is heading even further away from the compiled-in drivers and to a more modular kernel. According to LWN [lwn.net], Alan Cox said that Linux 2.6 will not have compiled-in drivers. "Compiled-in" drivers will just be modules that are written to the "initramfs", a sort of software boot disk compiled into the kernel.
From: Alan Cox
To: babydr@baby-dragons.com (Mr. James W. Laferriere)
Subject: Re: ISA hardware discovery -- the elegant solution
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:08:32 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), esr@thyrsus.com, cate@debian.org (Giacomo Catenazzi),
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Linux Kernel List)
> Hello All , And what mechanism is going to be used for an -all-
> compiled in kernel ? Everyone and there brother is so enamoured
> of Modules . Not everyone uses nor will use modules .
For 2.5 if things go to plan there will be no such thing as a "compiled in"
driver. They simply are not needed with initramfs holding what were once the
"compiled in" modules.
According to LWN, Alan Cox said that Linux 2.6 will not have compiled-in modules.
From: Alan Cox
To: babydr@baby-dragons.com (Mr. James W. Laferriere)
Subject: Re: ISA hardware discovery -- the elegant solution
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 18:08:32 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), esr@thyrsus.com,
cate@debian.org (Giacomo Catenazzi),
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org (Linux Kernel List)
> Hello All , And what mechanism is going to be used for an -all-
> compiled in kernel ? Everyone and there brother is so enamoured
> of Modules . Not everyone uses nor will use modules .
For 2.5 if things go to plan there will be no such thing as a "compiled in"
driver. They simply are not needed with initramfs holding what were once the
"compiled in" modules.
Alan
Earth: Mostly harmless.
Napster: Sucks ass.
Gnutella: Doesn't scale.
I bet the .nap files are keyed using some unique id to only work with that user's computer.
BSD ppl are always praising the 'Unix Way' of small utilities that do a very defined job and nothing more, and hate the extended features that GNU utils provide; in this case it's BSD rm that is doing something that could be done by another tool by adding a flag! Horror!
Having two programs that both delete a file is not a very good example of the Unix Way. A better example would be to have one program that overwrites the file with random data (but does not delete/unlink it) and then a second program to delete/unlink the file.
Why 0xff, 0x00, and then 0x00? Why not overwrite the file three times using random data?
Sun makes money from selling SPARC hardware. Companies buy SPARC hardware because they want Solaris. Sun obviously does not want to help Intel sell more x86 boxes. Claiming the Solaris x86 is taking time/money from Solaris SPARC is just a cover up.
so what is the difference between Rhapsody and Mac OS X? It seems like Mac OS X is just Rhapsody/OpenStep plus the Carbon compatibility layer.
Why do we want everyone's grandmother to be using Linux?
My grandma refuses to use Linux because its scheduler is O(n) and its "goodness" function can blow her L1 cache. If Linus adopts Ingo's O(1) scheduler, she just might reconsider.
How is a software company supposed to make money when it doesn't ship a product for four years? Short product schedules are not a problem. The problem is bad product management and vague or changing requirements.
you know, the one where the pollen from Monstanto GM corn kills Monarch butterflies.
Researchers find bio-engineered corn harms butterflies
old ladys.. damn..
Apple has been successfully going out of business for about 15 years.
I read that the Linux kernel developers are planning a number of kernel improvements to increase overall system reliability. Some of the minor updates include a completely new VM, new block IO layer, new VFS layer, new kernel NFS server, new device naming management, new SCSI lyaer, new IDE layer, and an in-kernel web server (khttpd and TUX) for improved system reliability.
Just like the similar complete rewrites in Linux 2.0, 2.2, and 2.4, Linux once again finally be a winning combination on the very high end!
For every little security flaw in each Windows "strain", Slashdot sounds the klaxons and warns of Microsoft's buggy code. But when there is a serious bug in some Unix NFS code, it's hidden in the BSD section or "proof" that the Open Sores security model is just doin' its job..
On 9/11 the airlines left the keys in the airplane, figuratively speaking. Then they took a loss and had to fix their security. If he wants to compare 9/11 attacks with software security, I think he better learn what to expect.
you mean Microsoft should expect a multi-billionaire dollar bailout package?
A major rewrite of the scheduler is planned for every new Linux kernel. Plus a rewrite of the VM, NFS, SCSI, VFS layer. Linux is getting greater all the time. That's why they have to keep rewriting it.
The NT kernel has not changed much since NT 3.51 in the earlier 90s, yet Linux is still losing benchmarks against NT.
I think that eventually we will need/want/have desktops that are smarted.
yes. I certainly feel like hurting my desktop some days..