Are you honestly sitting here and telling us that this has never occured with FreeBSD?
Comparing a FreeBSD-STABLE release to a Linux kernel release is silly, compare FreeBSD-STABLE to Debian-stable and then we have something to compare. That being the case, I would dare say that if you were to take all of the "releases" of Linux kernels and compare them to all of the releases of Freebsd-stable kernels you would find two things: a) That there are 10x more Linux kernel releases then there are FreeBSD ones in a given time period. b) That the percentage of serious bugs would be about the same. Which is saying something in Linux's favor seeing at how much more development is going on in that Camp (i.e. code being written).
FreeBSD is a great OS, but it is nothing special or uniqe even in the OSS world no matter what its loyal users claim.
It amazes me how big of a deal people make these types of issues out to be. I have heard of high standards but SH*T!. The more I read slashdot the more I realize that very few posters here actully work with much commerical grade software. These type of issues occure freqently with every software vendor I deal with professionally: Cisco, Microsoft, IBM, RedHat, Checkpoint ect.. ect.. The difference is when Cisco releases a new IOS image (which they do about twice as freqently as Linus does) They will quitely mark saym a 1/4th of them DF which stands for _DEFFERED_ i.e. SERIOUS BUG DON'T USE once it is discovered.
This is why production implentations of software go through testing before deployment when at all possible. If you are running Cisco IOS that is say less then a month old you are taking a risk that there will be a serious bug that will hurt you. The same holds true for Linux kernels or any other peice of software. The more complicated the software the harder it is to keep serious bugs from slipping through the cracks, It is _AMAZING_ that Linux has a few major issues as it does.
Here is an exercise for you all: Go to www.microsoft.com go to their support section and read through all of the changelogs (they are hard to find) for all of the hot fixes, service packs and general software updates and you will see what I mean (And yes you will find file system corruption there too).
RedHat 7.2 kernel and glibc updates.
on
Red Hat 7.2 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
My reference is his post on LK when someone asked him directly what his plan was for 2.4 once linus hands it off to go work on 2.5. Alan stated he does not know, but he does not expect the new VM to be in a predictable state for a while.
This post was in the last few days so it shouldn't be hard to track down and verify. I would do so but I am off to bed:)
Linux has always been forked in certain areas. Just enver the VM before. Not to mention ALan has stated on LK that he is going to stick with Rik's VM until the other one proves out. He did NOT say that he will keep it until 2.5.
Being someone who reads all the posts from the core kernel hackers (at least those that are public) I feel pretty confident in saying for the longest time Rik was to busy to fix bugs. Again he has this right.. Once other people started writting VM code (I think it started once pushonce was being tested by Daniel phillops) Rik has been churning out code at the rate he was in the pre 2.4 release days (back when he is bidding to get his code included). So I would not be suprised in the least that once pushonce was included that Rik patches have been ignored... the reason for which should be obvious Linus decided to take another direction with the VM and Rik's patches were incompatible with that direction.
I did not mean to say that people don't recompile kernels to suit their needs. I do not think it is the norm for comapnies (at least not large companies like I work for) but I agree that it is pretty common for people to recompile their kernels. But they recompile the kernels that are shipped and supported with their distro i.e. the redhat kernels. The only reaosn why I would compile a mainline kernel is if Redhat was failing to provide me support. Using a kernel that is not offically supported by redhat would harm my ability to get support through redhat.
2.4.10-AC10 does not include the -aa VM code. I will agree that 2.4.10 is unuseable on a heavly loaded system but this has been the case for most of the 2.4.xx mainline kernels redhat's 7.1+errata kernel being the exception as far as I can tell (and some of the beta kernels from 7.2).
So all in all yes, 2.4.7-9 was more stable for server workloads then 2.4.10, but I would bet comparing 2.4.11 to 2.4.7-9 would be a different story. Yes the latest -AC+patches most likely has a few less bugs then the 2.4.11-mainline. But thats not saying much given the huge number of patches that has gone into it over the last 6 months:).
My personal feelings on the new VM is that it was the right decision. The VM problems have been going on for months. When people would report a problem, Rik would pretty much say: I don't have time to work on so and so.. feel free to pay me or convince my employeer to fund the work. Which is fine, that is his choice... But if I was Linus this would make me more open to looking at alternitive approches even if the short term risks were moderate.
It is also interesting to note that Rik's vm core has had say 15 kernel releases (unstable + stable) to become stable and meet up to the expectations that Rik sold the kernel hackers on in the first place and judging from the reports on LK it is just now becoming stable enough for most work loads.
The new 2.2.10+ VM had a couple minor to moderate problems for _SOME_ work loads but over all has received very good reports as far as I can tell for being so new. 2.4.11 is bound to be even better.
Some people are complaining about the inclusion of major VM modifcations in the stable tree. I believe the truth is that most people that use Linux in production do not roll their own kernels. They use the vendor supplied kernels.
Redhat for example will be releasing a 2.2.7-11-AC kernel which uses Rik's VM, it is what they have been testing for months and thus is what they will end up shipping. So the fact that Linus made this change in the "Stable" tree makes very little difference to me from a stability stand point, and I think it will prove to be a very good call in the short/medium/long run.
We did. We make the world suck because we have nothing we all hold to be true. Diversity has brought us to where we are today. I can proclaim we should find a common goal and work to increase the quality of life for all of humanity, but we all know where that would lead.
Around 25% would use the "not enough" arguement which normally centers around a idea that some how there is not enough "stuff" (time, resources ect..) with which everyone can have a high quality of life.
Another 25% would use the survival of the fittest arguement, which is normally presented in the form of who has the bigger penis, but in my opinion is just the fear that there is "not enough" wrapped up in kid games.
Another 25% would use the arguement that its "other people" who cause the world to suck.
The last 25% would spend their time telling me how bad my spelling/grammer is, or how my numbers are wrong, or how its whinners like me who make the world suck.
What almost no one would do is agree that yes.. the world sucks.. and yes we made it suck.. and that yes.. we should first agree to make it not suck.. then figure out how to engineer a world where we all at least can agree it sucks less.
But thats not going to happen, because I never posted this... I took the blue pill and realized that we must like this world, if not why are we all actively creating it?
People use ethics and morals as shades to cover ones eyes. A societies value system is based off self-interest. Morals, ethics and laws are tools used by the majority to impose regulation over society as a whole. (At least in theory).
To share or not to share digital data is a question of self-interest both individually and collectively. Is it in your self-interests to reward a software author? Depends. If your contribution ultimately benefits you then yes, otherwise no.
I believe it is in myself interest to give back to someone who gives to me. What I give back should be of equal value in what I feel I received.
In the case of non-material objects I not the author should determine the value received. In the case where someone posses something I want then a agreement as to the objects price must be found.
In a society where its members understand the meaning of "enlightened self interest" it becomes common sense to reward those who add value to their lives, in such a system what need is there for patents and intellectual property laws? The need for these things come from the belief system that people is un-trustworthy and selfish by nature. Which is always the case when a society is short sighted and unable to see that it is ALWAYS in ones self interest to reward those who bring value to their lives.
I don't see the problem here. Commerical software is restricted and it is against the law (in most countries) to use software that you have not paid for. This is another example of how commerical software is developed to restrict not to benefit the users. If you want freedom over the software you use, stop using software that restricts your freedoms. Fighting this battle on their terms is a lost cause, the only practical way to fight this is by replacing restricted software with Free (community owned) software.
If you want to replace everything from operating systems to games with Free/Open Software then I suggest we start looking into ways that would alow the community to fund developers to write these programs full time.
Developers will only be able to devote themselve's full time if they can afford to do so. Since free software isn't about price, and all about freedom why is it that the users of Free Software do not provide the developers with the resources required to better serve us?
NO he didn't. He said that he found that Linux performence improved when tunning the system. I did not read it to mean that the benchmarks were made after tunning the system.
2.96 is the shipping compiler with redhat 7. I don't care if its based off swiss cheese. Redhat provides support for 2.96 (including bug fixes) so wether or not its offically supported by the "gcc developers" is pointless.
Oh come on. When there is a well known, well documented performence bug in a x.x.0 release you can't very well do a benchmark and proclaim it is useful in showing people how a machine performs.
The last benchmark on slashdot showed Linux ahead of Freebsd in web serving and behind on most everything else. Now we are seeing just the opposite go figure.
First of all I think this benchmark is unfair. Even that being the case linux showed it can outperform Freebsd in mysql and sendmail.
I believe this test was unfair in the following ways:
1) The author used the latest version of Freebsd, yet did not specifiy what distro of Linux he used. For this to be really fair, I think he should have used say RedHat 7.0 (with patches) (or any other distro based on glibc 2.2 compiled with -i686 extentions).
2) There are a number of well documented performance (bad paging) and stability issues with Kernel 2.4.0 which all have been corrected in 2.4.1-AC3. Because of this I think it would be more fair to either test 2.4.1-AC3 or wait until 2.4.2 and retest.
3) He should of used apache 1.3.17. 1.3.17 finally adds some Linux specific hooks to take advantage of v2.2+ kernels (see for details: http://www.apacheweek.com/issues/01-02-02). Now before the Freebsd crowd jumps up and down, I ask you to check the apache history file for all the Freebsd kernel hooks in 1.3.x apache compared to linux.
On top of this, it would seem that the Linux kernel 2.4 adds even more functionality that apache could take advantage, but at this time does not.
4) I would like to see if using the version of Mysql and sendmail that comes with redhat 7 changes the results at all. These applications have been compiled with the 2.96 compiler which is supposed to effect performence to some degree.
In summary I don't think this was a apples to apples comparision as the author used the latest and greatest Freebsd (not just the kernel) against an unknown Linux distro.
I would be interested to see if Linux couldn't also pull ahead of freebsd in webserving with Kernel: 2.4.1-AC3, apache 1.3.17 and glibc2-i686.
Look at the web benchmark more closely, it shows Linux outperforming Freebsd not the other way around. Freebsd is outperforming Linux in compile times and nfs however.
Logic is a powerful tool when explaining what "is" or what "exists" from OUR perspective. Logic dictates that for every observable occurrence there will exsist a root cause. Logic however is completely unable to explain the the unobservable occurences i.e. quantum pre-states, or root causes (i.e. where reality came from).
Logically speaking "something' cannot come from "nothing", this would be impossible. Thus the only logical conclusion is that what we call "reality" came from something "outside" of itself.
Anyone who thinks our sensory input can even remotely explain "reality", I recommend you do some reading on the subject of quantum mechanics. I am not saying that quantum mechanics proves the existence of the "outside cause" only that it shows the limits of our logic.
The fact that all of our "reality" is built on something like quantum mechanics leads me to believe that the only thing I know for sure, is that I exist. Everything else I believe/think is merely an illusion created by me.
Even the illusion that I Shane am seperate from everything else is merely my perspective.
Albert Einstein said it best: "The illusion that we are separate from one another is an optical delusion of our consiousness"
Everyone is so quick to call stallman a looney because he is standing up for freedom. He is TRYING to protect all of our freedoms by being consistent in his views. We do not have the liberty to decide when its "ok" to break the GPL and when it is "not ok". It is never ok, that holds true even for other free software developers.
Everyone would be up in arms if it was microsoft who wrote an "open source" GUI with proprietary widgets.
What stallman said was perfectly reasonable given the circumstances. There have been a number of instances where a KDE app developer took GPL protected code and modified it to work with KDE/QT. Anyone remember KIMP (THE QT GIMP REPLACEMENT). It is PERFECTLY reasonable for stallman to ask developers (gimp developers for example) to forgive past violations by kde developers who broke the GPL (*example KIMP).
*sigh*
Slashdot Mirror
Are you honestly sitting here and telling us that this has never occured with FreeBSD?
Comparing a FreeBSD-STABLE release to a Linux kernel release is silly, compare FreeBSD-STABLE to Debian-stable and then we have something to compare. That being the case, I would dare say that if you were to take all of the "releases" of Linux kernels and compare them to all of the releases of Freebsd-stable kernels you would find two things: a) That there are 10x more Linux kernel releases then there are FreeBSD ones in a given time period. b) That the percentage of serious bugs would be about the same. Which is saying something in Linux's favor seeing at how much more development is going on in that Camp (i.e. code being written).
FreeBSD is a great OS, but it is nothing special or uniqe even in the OSS world no matter what its loyal users claim.
It amazes me how big of a deal people make these types of issues out to be. I have heard of high standards but SH*T!. The more I read slashdot the more I realize that very few posters here actully work with much commerical grade software. These type of issues occure freqently with every software vendor I deal with professionally: Cisco, Microsoft, IBM, RedHat, Checkpoint ect.. ect.. The difference is when Cisco releases a new IOS image (which they do about twice as freqently as Linus does) They will quitely mark saym a 1/4th of them DF which stands for _DEFFERED_ i.e. SERIOUS BUG DON'T USE once it is discovered.
This is why production implentations of software go through testing before deployment when at all possible. If you are running Cisco IOS that is say less then a month old you are taking a risk that there will be a serious bug that will hurt you. The same holds true for Linux kernels or any other peice of software. The more complicated the software the harder it is to keep serious bugs from slipping through the cracks, It is _AMAZING_ that Linux has a few major issues as it does.
Here is an exercise for you all: Go to www.microsoft.com go to their support section and read through all of the changelogs (they are hard to find) for all of the hot fixes, service packs and general software updates and you will see what I mean (And yes you will find file system corruption there too).
kernel-headers-2.4.9-7.i386.rpm
kernel-2.4.9-7.i386.rpm
kernel-doc-2.4.9-7.i386.rpm
kernel-source-2.4.9-7.i386.rpm
kernel-BOOT-2.4.9-7.i386.rpm
nscd-2.2.4-19.i386.rpm
glibc-common-2.2.4-19.i386.rpm
glibc-devel-2.2.4-19.i386.rpm
glibc-profile-2.2.4-19.i386.rpm
glibc-2.2.4-19.i386.rpm
openssh-askpass-gnome-2.9p2-9.i386.rpm
openssh-2.9p2-9.i386.rpm
openssh-askpass-2.9p2-9.i386.rpm
openssh-clients-2.9p2-9.i386.rpm
openssh-server-2.9p2-9.i386.rpm
squid-2.4.STABLE1-6.i386.rpm
mew-1.94.2-12.i386.rpm
util-linux-2.11f-12.i386.rpm
My reference is his post on LK when someone asked him directly what his plan was for 2.4 once linus hands it off to go work on 2.5. Alan stated he does not know, but he does not expect the new VM to be in a predictable state for a while.
:)
This post was in the last few days so it shouldn't be hard to track down and verify. I would do so but I am off to bed
Linux has always been forked in certain areas. Just enver the VM before. Not to mention ALan has stated on LK that he is going to stick with Rik's VM until the other one proves out. He did NOT say that he will keep it until 2.5.
Being someone who reads all the posts from the core kernel hackers (at least those that are public) I feel pretty confident in saying for the longest time Rik was to busy to fix bugs. Again he has this right.. Once other people started writting VM code (I think it started once pushonce was being tested by Daniel phillops) Rik has been churning out code at the rate he was in the pre 2.4 release days (back when he is bidding to get his code included). So I would not be suprised in the least that once pushonce was included that Rik patches have been ignored... the reason for which should be obvious Linus decided to take another direction with the VM and Rik's patches were incompatible with that direction.
I did not mean to say that people don't recompile kernels to suit their needs. I do not think it is the norm for comapnies (at least not large companies like I work for) but I agree that it is pretty common for people to recompile their kernels. But they recompile the kernels that are shipped and supported with their distro i.e. the redhat kernels. The only reaosn why I would compile a mainline kernel is if Redhat was failing to provide me support. Using a kernel that is not offically supported by redhat would harm my ability to get support through redhat.
So all in all yes, 2.4.7-9 was more stable for server workloads then 2.4.10, but I would bet comparing 2.4.11 to 2.4.7-9 would be a different story. Yes the latest -AC+patches most likely has a few less bugs then the 2.4.11-mainline. But thats not saying much given the huge number of patches that has gone into it over the last 6 months :).
It is also interesting to note that Rik's vm core has had say 15 kernel releases (unstable + stable) to become stable and meet up to the expectations that Rik sold the kernel hackers on in the first place and judging from the reports on LK it is just now becoming stable enough for most work loads.
The new 2.2.10+ VM had a couple minor to moderate problems for _SOME_ work loads but over all has received very good reports as far as I can tell for being so new. 2.4.11 is bound to be even better.
Some people are complaining about the inclusion of major VM modifcations in the stable tree. I believe the truth is that most people that use Linux in production do not roll their own kernels. They use the vendor supplied kernels. Redhat for example will be releasing a 2.2.7-11-AC kernel which uses Rik's VM, it is what they have been testing for months and thus is what they will end up shipping. So the fact that Linus made this change in the "Stable" tree makes very little difference to me from a stability stand point, and I think it will prove to be a very good call in the short/medium/long run.
Thats my 2 cents anyways.
Around 25% would use the "not enough" arguement which normally centers around a idea that some how there is not enough "stuff" (time, resources ect..) with which everyone can have a high quality of life.
Another 25% would use the survival of the fittest arguement, which is normally presented in the form of who has the bigger penis, but in my opinion is just the fear that there is "not enough" wrapped up in kid games.
Another 25% would use the arguement that its "other people" who cause the world to suck.
The last 25% would spend their time telling me how bad my spelling/grammer is, or how my numbers are wrong, or how its whinners like me who make the world suck.
What almost no one would do is agree that yes.. the world sucks.. and yes we made it suck.. and that yes.. we should first agree to make it not suck.. then figure out how to engineer a world where we all at least can agree it sucks less.
But thats not going to happen, because I never posted this... I took the blue pill and realized that we must like this world, if not why are we all actively creating it?
People use ethics and morals as shades to cover ones eyes. A societies value system is based off self-interest. Morals, ethics and laws are tools used by the majority to impose regulation over society as a whole. (At least in theory).
To share or not to share digital data is a question of self-interest both individually and collectively. Is it in your self-interests to reward a software author? Depends. If your contribution ultimately benefits you then yes, otherwise no.
I believe it is in myself interest to give back to someone who gives to me. What I give back should be of equal value in what I feel I received.
In the case of non-material objects I not the author should determine the value received. In the case where someone posses something I want then a agreement as to the objects price must be found.
In a society where its members understand the meaning of "enlightened self interest" it becomes common sense to reward those who add value to their lives, in such a system what need is there for patents and intellectual property laws? The need for these things come from the belief system that people is un-trustworthy and selfish by nature. Which is always the case when a society is short sighted and unable to see that it is ALWAYS in ones self interest to reward those who bring value to their lives.
If you want to replace everything from operating systems to games with Free/Open Software then I suggest we start looking into ways that would alow the community to fund developers to write these programs full time.
Developers will only be able to devote themselve's full time if they can afford to do so. Since free software isn't about price, and all about freedom why is it that the users of Free Software do not provide the developers with the resources required to better serve us?
NO he didn't. He said that he found that Linux performence improved when tunning the system. I did not read it to mean that the benchmarks were made after tunning the system.
Yeah but it turns into a benchmark of who can load apache daemons faster.. rather then who can serv webpages the fastest :)
Did I read the report wrong or did Linux beat FreeBSD in Mysql and sendmail?
2.96 is the shipping compiler with redhat 7. I don't care if its based off swiss cheese. Redhat provides support for 2.96 (including bug fixes) so wether or not its offically supported by the "gcc developers" is pointless.
Oh come on. When there is a well known, well documented performence bug in a x.x.0 release you can't very well do a benchmark and proclaim it is useful in showing people how a machine performs. The last benchmark on slashdot showed Linux ahead of Freebsd in web serving and behind on most everything else. Now we are seeing just the opposite go figure.
How was Linux optimized? I did not seem him change any /proc settings.
First of all I think this benchmark is unfair. Even that being the case linux showed it can outperform Freebsd in mysql and sendmail. I believe this test was unfair in the following ways: 1) The author used the latest version of Freebsd, yet did not specifiy what distro of Linux he used. For this to be really fair, I think he should have used say RedHat 7.0 (with patches) (or any other distro based on glibc 2.2 compiled with -i686 extentions). 2) There are a number of well documented performance (bad paging) and stability issues with Kernel 2.4.0 which all have been corrected in 2.4.1-AC3. Because of this I think it would be more fair to either test 2.4.1-AC3 or wait until 2.4.2 and retest. 3) He should of used apache 1.3.17. 1.3.17 finally adds some Linux specific hooks to take advantage of v2.2+ kernels (see for details: http://www.apacheweek.com/issues/01-02-02). Now before the Freebsd crowd jumps up and down, I ask you to check the apache history file for all the Freebsd kernel hooks in 1.3.x apache compared to linux. On top of this, it would seem that the Linux kernel 2.4 adds even more functionality that apache could take advantage, but at this time does not. 4) I would like to see if using the version of Mysql and sendmail that comes with redhat 7 changes the results at all. These applications have been compiled with the 2.96 compiler which is supposed to effect performence to some degree. In summary I don't think this was a apples to apples comparision as the author used the latest and greatest Freebsd (not just the kernel) against an unknown Linux distro. I would be interested to see if Linux couldn't also pull ahead of freebsd in webserving with Kernel: 2.4.1-AC3, apache 1.3.17 and glibc2-i686.
...
Well according to Computerworld it runs Linux. http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV4 7_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
Look at the web benchmark more closely, it shows Linux outperforming Freebsd not the other way around. Freebsd is outperforming Linux in compile times and nfs however.
Logic is a powerful tool when explaining what "is" or what "exists" from OUR perspective. Logic dictates that for every observable occurrence there will exsist a root cause. Logic however is completely unable to explain the the unobservable occurences i.e. quantum pre-states, or root causes (i.e. where reality came from). Logically speaking "something' cannot come from "nothing", this would be impossible. Thus the only logical conclusion is that what we call "reality" came from something "outside" of itself. Anyone who thinks our sensory input can even remotely explain "reality", I recommend you do some reading on the subject of quantum mechanics. I am not saying that quantum mechanics proves the existence of the "outside cause" only that it shows the limits of our logic. The fact that all of our "reality" is built on something like quantum mechanics leads me to believe that the only thing I know for sure, is that I exist. Everything else I believe/think is merely an illusion created by me. Even the illusion that I Shane am seperate from everything else is merely my perspective. Albert Einstein said it best: "The illusion that we are separate from one another is an optical delusion of our consiousness"
Was kimp not availible in CVS format?? I could of swore it was. But if not I am sorry for claiming as such. Kimp was only an EXAMPLE however.
Everyone is so quick to call stallman a looney because he is standing up for freedom. He is TRYING to protect all of our freedoms by being consistent in his views. We do not have the liberty to decide when its "ok" to break the GPL and when it is "not ok". It is never ok, that holds true even for other free software developers. Everyone would be up in arms if it was microsoft who wrote an "open source" GUI with proprietary widgets. What stallman said was perfectly reasonable given the circumstances. There have been a number of instances where a KDE app developer took GPL protected code and modified it to work with KDE/QT. Anyone remember KIMP (THE QT GIMP REPLACEMENT). It is PERFECTLY reasonable for stallman to ask developers (gimp developers for example) to forgive past violations by kde developers who broke the GPL (*example KIMP). *sigh*