Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: The linux kernel

  1. #1

    The linux kernel

    I have been wondering -
    some people (ah what the heck GnuVince) think the linux kernel is too diversified, i.e. it is trying to be all things to everyone and this creates an bloated kernel, the Hurd is mentioned to being preferable because it can load desktop or server modules - but linux can do this too.

    i know linux is really freaking scabable, it can run run on wrist watches, PDAs etc all the way to those massive IBM servers, i have one machine doing nothing but server stuff (admittitly petty stuff) and and another as my desktop.

    so i can't think of why the linux kernel is less than desirable - believe me when i tell ya i am not saying there are not other better solutions and of course all things should be open to critism.

    i don't know what other solutions are out there - i am honestly wondering why some people don't like the linux kernel.

  2. #2

    Re: The linux kernel

    I find the linux kernel great, becuase of the way a user can interact with it, and design it for thier system. No easy task when dealing with something like Solaris....

  3. #3
    Guest

    Re: The linux kernel

    the Hurd is mentioned to being preferable because it can load desktop or server modules
    could, because HURD is far from being complete. *Sometimes, I even doubt it will be released.


    i don't know what other solutions are out there - i am honestly wondering why some people don't like the linux kernel. *
    Another thing is that Linus won't accept some patches if he has issues with the developper, he often accepts small hacks instead of better thought solutions (like is required in the BSD's) and he's also the only person who says what goes into the kernel. *So he has to make all the code review himself, but he's a human, so he makes mistake. *On the other hand, there are about 300 developpers which have CVS commit access to the FreeBSD tree. *This means 300 people can look at the code before it is included. *This way, code can get a more general approval, and also, the developpers are less tired since the task is much more divided.



  4. #4

    Re: The linux kernel

    Sounds like it could turn into the hell that debian is.

  5. #5

    Re: The linux kernel

    could, because HURD is far from being complete. Sometimes, I even doubt it will be released.
    This is the original posting to usenet that Linus Torvalds made when he announced Linux. In it, he states:

    I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got minix.
    (my emphasis)

    That was (nearly) 11 years ago. 'nuff said.

  6. #6

    Re: The linux kernel

    While having a whole group to monitor the kernel would be ideal, Linus would rather do it himself. He can handle allmost all of the work himself but I'm sure it takes up lots of time and can be tiresome.

    I'm not sure why he doens't want to CVS to kernel code and give out permision to a group to add/modify code like BSD style does but it is his kernel and anyone is welcome to fork it and do that if they want.

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Kind Mastermind
    stryder144's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    2,925

    Re: The linux kernel

    I've thought about modifying the code a little bit by stripping out the non-x86 stuff. While I admit to not being a hacker, I think that it would be rather "easy" to repackage (not fork) the code for the x86. I hate having all that "extra" code when I download a new/newer kernel. Maybe I will start maintaining code for kernel 2.x.x-stryder! (Nah, my wife wouldn't want me paying for the very expensive webhosting service that would be required if I did something like that. Oh, well. So much for one more of my geek dreams!)

    I admire Linus, but I must admit that I would never be the only one to accept code changes. Especially since the project has grown so much. That seems to be too much like work for my tastes.

  8. #8

    Re: The linux kernel

    Another thing is that Linus won't accept some patches if he has issues with the developper, he often accepts small hacks instead of better thought solutions (like is required in the BSD's) and he's also the only person who says what goes into the kernel. *So he has to make all the code review himself, but he's a human, so he makes mistake. *On the other hand, there are about 300 developpers which have CVS commit access to the FreeBSD tree. *This means 300 people can look at the code before it is included. *This way, code can get a more general approval, and also, the developpers are less tired since the task is much more divided.
    Actually, the code in the stable branches of the kernel are quite clean. *I've looked at some of it. *From what I've seen, they aren't simple hacks. *It might seem like the kernel is made of hacks because 2.4 was rather chaotic, and was probably released too early. *Linus had issues with it all the way through to 2.4.10.

    Also, Linus never liked CVS, and that's why he didn't use it. *He preferred the idea of "code generals" instead. *I have to agree with him. *CVS is great for small projects, but doesn't scale well. *It's not exactly the best thing to have thirty or more different maintainers making CVS commits. *That's just messy.

    This isn't to say that he is opposed to source control software. *He just doesn't like CVS. *In fact, he is looking into using BitKeeper for source control.

    In all honesty, I think it was the 2.4 branch that really messed with his image. *The politics surrounding it were rather messy, as was the code itself (to some degree.)

    I personally think that Torvalds is an extremely intelligent person that will figure it out for the 2.6 branch.

    If anyone's wondering, I like the *BSDs just as much as I like Linux, and yes, I do use both, so no one can accuse me of using only Linux.

    PS All of this was discussed on /. and there were some extremely intelligent comments on the issue. I suggest reading the comments. I especially encourage you to read this comment in particular. Here is another one.

  9. #9
    Guest

    Re: The linux kernel

    http://www.idg.net/ic_829012_4394_1-3921.html

    Whoa! There's one thing I am wondering though: will we have the possibility to install non-free software? I mean, the HURD sounds great, but there are some commercial applications that we might want to use...

  10. #10

    Re: The linux kernel


    http://www.idg.net/ic_829012_4394_1-3921.html

    Whoa! *There's one thing I am wondering though: will we have the possibility to install non-free software? *I mean, the HURD sounds great, but there are some commercial applications that we might want to use...
    Are there? :

    But anyway, I'm sure you can install any programs you'd like. Though, it would be funny if the Hurd had a module that scanned packages for nonfree licenses...

Similar Threads

  1. Linux 2.6.0 Kernel Released
    By Ashcrow in forum General Chat
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-30-2003, 10:58 PM
  2. Linux Kernel...
    By veejay in forum Linux - General Topics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-20-2003, 07:33 PM
  3. Linux 2.2 Kernel
    By teknik0s in forum Linux - General Topics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-01-2002, 11:37 PM
  4. BSD Kernel under Linux...
    By gfunkmonk in forum BSD
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-06-2002, 09:54 PM
  5. Linux 7.2 kernel
    By Mold2 in forum Linux - General Topics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-12-2002, 05:17 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •