Kernel Changes Draw Concern 685
Saeed al-Sahaf writes "Is the Linux kernel becoming fat and unstable? Computer Associates seems to think so. Sam Greenblatt, a senior vice president at Computer Associates, said the kernel is 'getting fatter. We are not interested in the game drivers and music drivers that are being added to the kernel. We are interested in a more stable kernel.' There continues to be a huge debate over what technology to fold into the Linux kernel, and Andrew Morton, the current maintainer of the Linux 2.6 kernel, expands on these subjects in this article at eWeek."
Just my $0.02 (Score:5, Interesting)
"We are not interested in the game drivers and music drivers that are being added to the kernel. We are interested in a more stable kernel."
If you don't want it, don't compile it in. Thats the best part about having the kernel opened and so easy to manipulate. With the GUI available for modifying the kernel as well as a detailed set of instructions built right in, anyone can sit there and remove support for the latest gaming joystick if they so choose to. No one is making you keep it. If the kernel didn't have the option of supporting it, or if they discontinue the building of, then Linux will never be ready for the desktop. Just because Morton or Linus decides to add/accept support for the desktop community doesn't mean that the kernel won't be any more stable. Who is to say that adding gaming support took time away from stabilizing the kernel? If I'm strictly a game hardware designer and send my contribution to support the latest device does not mean that I could have spent my time improving the kernel. I may not be comfortable doing that. In other words, maybe I can't stabilize the kernel but I can write new drivers for it. And if I spend my time doing that it doesn't mean that I take time away from those improving and stabilizing the kernel.
The part that really caught me off guard is the inclusion of the Xen virtualization technology. [crn.com] Big changes are coming to the kernel that are really going to improve Linux and its functionality in the buisness and home world.
Isn't that why, (Score:3, Interesting)
FP?
"fatter" (Score:3, Interesting)
And about "fatter": I don't get it. You will probably use ONE sound driver, ONE (or perhaps two) network drivers, etc. Just the fact that the *amount* of drivers is gettling bigger, does not mean the kernel "is getting fatter".
Quote by some jackass (Score:1, Interesting)
That's cool.
Conversely, we are not interested in what interests whiny bloviating assholes who go on record to offer unsolicited unconstructive criticism.
this is nothing new (Score:5, Interesting)
What would be cool is if the linux distros had default kernel options, much the way some of the majors have Workstation, Server, etc... that would adjust the kernel based on how the machine was being used.
Yes, I know one can reconfigure the kernel by one's self, but it then requires personal care and feeding for patches, upgrades, etc... It becomes one more thing one has to do. Personally, unless I really need it, I'm not goign to bother... too much of a PITA
Probably true (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand I was screwed so badly by CA that my automatic reation to anything they say or do is to discount it as coming from that Den of Thieves and Liars.
Inevitable event (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
Can someone explain it to me or is this just a badly written article that is referring to the license of other virtualization technologies.
Re:Compiled Kernel not necessarily getting fatter. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm torn (Score:5, Interesting)
I really miss the days when I could run on a P166 with 32 MB of RAM, and KDE ran not too badly (as long as you don't try to open Netscape or StarOffice). I don't think this kind of performance is attainable at all anymore.
But on the other hand, I'd be loth to run a kernel that didn't at least support USB! I love having ALSA instead of the old mishmash of sound drivers. Ext3 was a relief. I must say that for me at least ip[tables|filter|chains] was confusing, but I trust that the best choices were made... Going back to a kernel that didn't have those features would be simply unnaceptable.
Has the kernel reached a level of complexity where the ol'time stability isn't likely to happen anymore? We just need to react with patches, just like the other OSs out there?
Re:"fatter" (Score:5, Interesting)
I already have a third part driver, from linux-wlan-ng, and every time I upgrade the kernel I have to remember to recompile it again.
The kernel should have everything. Obvious, for licensing reasons, only GPL stuff, but everything that's GPL, and is a kernel driver, and is up to minimal code standards.
In fact, having to track down third party drivers has been a much more valid complaint than 'Too many drivers', which is just idiotic.
I see a lot of clueless replies (Score:5, Interesting)
Problem is, that doesn't affect the main problem, which is that 3 million lines of options code is a LOT harder to keep bug free among all the different combinations than 1 million loc.
All bugs may be shallow given enough eyeballs, but the difficulty of debugging the linux codebase may well be increasing faster than the number of eyeballs.
Re:Straight from a horses mouth. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"fatter" (Score:3, Interesting)
How many people actually use I2O, HAM and all that exotic hardware Linux can support? Spinning off all the exotic sections into separate downloads would seriously reduce the average download size. For fairness to server people, I suppose even the sound system could be dumped into a separate archive.
If "make *config" conveniently removes sections whose directory does not exist from the menu, not having the directories in question becomes a convenient way of disabling all items within that section.
Re:Just my $0.02 (Score:5, Interesting)
grr let me rephrase : an option to download only stuff i need, eg i could only get the sources that i actually selec in the kernel config gconfig,menuconfig,config, whatever feels good
on the other hand if you cannot download 40 megs buy a distribution on cd/dvd or use windoze
I am happy with the kernel, and however is monkey enough to compile everything IN and than complain about it being big well uhm
i love the kernel supporting more and more of the junk i can stuff into my machine to enhance my gamin...video... I mean work and productivity
Don't want it, don't use it (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
AMD have also indicated their support for the Xen project.
Note that performance using (at least a degree of) paravirtualisation (guest OS porting) will likely still be better (at the very least equal) to that of hardware supported virtualisation, so there is still a point to Guest OS modifications and specialised drivers.
That line of thinking can be dangerous though (Score:5, Interesting)
This is espically true for companies who's core bussiness isn't IT or engineering or the like. If a company just uses computers as a means to an end and they don't really have a tech staff, it can be expensive, difficult and risky to contract someone to do the development they need. Better to just get a commercial solution.
I'm not saying this means OSS devs need to jump up and meet every request from every person that whines, that's clearly impossible. However I find that the OSS community in general is way to fast to say "It's open, if you want the feature, write it yourself!" Rather the merit of the request should be weighed, it may be worth your while to work on. If it's not, then you should give reasoning as to why not, and not just say "Do it yourself."
Re:Microkernels... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, but they only require marshalling when you cross a protection boundary. Without that, they can be as efficient as the Amiga message primitive which was four instructions long.
The C function interface does not suffice. That's the same problem that RPC mechanisms have. The C function interface is synchronous, messages can be asynchronous, they can be buffered and queued, they make concurrency implicit and invisible rather than forcing every component to be explicitly and painfully aware of it, lest they become a bottleneck.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
You need a license for the host OS, and a license for the hosted OS. It's also having to provide fake hardware.
With Xen, maybe it's not that extreme. With the same OS inside and out, and it knowing about itself, it might not be running two copies at all, acting like a really extreme version of chroot instead. Hence the licencing being better.
And it would seem to be a lot saner. I mean, think about disk files. With VMWare, VMWare takes the file, fakes a device from it, and Linux accesses the device, but that's rather goofy when you think about it, because Linux can already mount files. With kernel support, the host kernel could let the hosted OS have direct disk access to that file, and only that file.
In the Linux kernel, there are a lot of 'loopback' and 'fake devices' concepts like that. There's the loopback mounter, there's SCSI emulation, there's fake network devices, there's the fake PS/2 mouse in /dev/input/mice, there's all sorts of pretend hardware. With Linux-on-Linux support in the kernel, that fake hardware could trivially turn into 'real' hardware for a hosted machine, where the hosted kernel know it's accessing something fake, and the host kernel just needs to restrict access.
Hopefully this will be extendable enough that the 'devices' the hosted kernel use can be shared with Linux-on-other-platforms, like coLinux on Windows. And the devices exposed to the hosted machine could be exposed to other emulators.
Re:What about older hardware! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Compiled Kernel not necessarily getting fatter. (Score:3, Interesting)
The only loaded modules would be ones for the hardware your friend actually had, I should think. That's the beauty of modules - they won't load unless they're needed.
As for services, yes, there's many services installed in any distro, in any OS, that most users don't require. And it's usually fairly easy to stop them (there's generally a GUI to change which services are run automatically; the last time I looked at Mandrake it was in the main Mandrake control panel software, so pretty easy to find). But that's not a kernel issue and it's not even an OS issue, so it's hardly relevant here.
Re:Just my $0.02 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What about older hardware! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That line of thinking can be dangerous though (Score:3, Interesting)
Anything said by anybody at CA... (Score:3, Interesting)
Last April, CA restated $2.2 billion in sales that it had improperly reported. Chairman and CEO Sanjay Kumar stepped down, and three CA executives pleaded guilty to fraud. In September, Mr. Kumar was indicted for securities fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice in connection with accounting practices while he was CEO of CA. The company has also footed a $225-million restitution fund for shareholders.
This extraordinary mendacity and outright fraud when coupled with a long history of predatory business practices that would make Bill Gates blush means I will totally ignore anything anyone associated with CA ever says, never buy their products, point out thier failings to anyone who will listen and advise others to do the same.
Re:As we all know... (Score:3, Interesting)
To some degree, laziness is probably involved.
With Windows, the issue is different - it is "featuritis".
"We need a complicated Group Policy system because we have to lock down the desktop!"
"Why?"
"Because our users will screw up their machines if we allow them to do anything!"
"Why?"
(Because we designed the system wrong in the first place - giving users the ability to screw up their machines by doing anything at all...)
As a result, Windows has built "system management" into a totally unmanageable mess that hardly any sys admin can figure out anymore.
As an example, last night in my Server 2003 class, we did a SIMPLE exercise that created an Organizational Unit, assigned a Group Policy to it, and used it to control the behavior of a user assigned to that OU. Worked for most people in the class.
Didn't work for several people in the class.
Teacher couldn't figure out why it didn't work.
It just didn't. The appropriate permissions were assigned to the user account, gpupdate was run, the permissions showed as established in the Security tab - then you reboot as that user: nada. Zip. Zero. Default permissions. Everything done just as the textbook instructed - didn't work. Why? Who knows? Some sys admin who would have to spend an hour or ten to find out - or call Microsoft at $275 to ask them.
If Linux (and the desktops and system management tools layered on it) follow this course, then, yes, Linux will turn into a disaster. Fortunately, there is a treatment (if not a cure) - forking.
Try and fork Windows - or even Solaris.
Re:That line of thinking can be dangerous though (Score:5, Interesting)
I cant believe any such a debate emerges over quotes from one of the worst managed, maligned companies in enterprise software. Slashdot is doing them a favor by advertising this dude's comments...
Re:I'm torn (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Compiled Kernel not necessarily getting fatter. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll say it: the 2.6 kernel is unstable on x86_64 platforms with USB 2.0 mass storeage devices. There are bug reports everywhere. The response? "It's fixed." The reality? The system locks up like Fort Knox whenever it's booted with a USB 2.0 mass storeage device attached.
game or music drivers? (Score:2, Interesting)
like, maybe for instance sound and video drivers?
Isn't calling these game and music drivers a bit misleading, and a bit discrediting at that? It's not like those things don't have their own group of developers taking care of them. It's not as if the alsa guys are stealing kernel developers away from their precious stable-code-writing-tasks, or anything.
As for video drivers...well if you're any bit of a serious gamer on linux and using one of the latest cards this most likely means you're using the ATI or nvidia closed source drivers, which again is not exactly relevant to any work that the lead kernel developers are probably doing...
It seems like this guy is completely clueless and is just making a big fuss over nothing. Or maybe they're just bitter that their favorite feature didn't get into the kernel but a new sound driver did? Hrmm...
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just my $0.02 (Score:5, Interesting)
What's rediculous is having to recompile C code to remove unwanted bloaty functionality. What's that do for QA? No two compiled kernels are the same, depending on what got commented out, compiler, settings, etc. Thats the concern with stability.
Why worry about whether or not newly added stuff is going to break. If the scope of each layer is limited properly the kernel can be fundamentally stable.
Here's more info on micro kernels and why they rock [linuxfinances.info]
CA Complains about bloat? (Score:2, Interesting)
We all knew that ... (Score:2, Interesting)
Hurd [gnu.org] fanatics' usual argument [chennailug.org] against Linux.
Though Linus calls Linux modular, it isn't actually modular because at run time the kernel runs as one big program( it is called modular because of the modules aspect of Linux). The disadvantage of this being, as the kernel gets bigger it is going to be more difficult to maintain it. On the other hand, the microkernel as such is small. The modules are in user space, and are separate programs, which helps in maintaining them.
Look ahead 5 years and see how Linux kernel would be experiencing more bloat and Hurd getting better each time
Take a look at the linux-tiny patchset (Score:5, Interesting)
The linux-tiny [selenic.com] patchset is your friend here. Using it, I've gotten a relatively full-featured kernel booting on x86 weighing in at under 800K... and that's without doing any agressive trimming, and without module support. According to his OLS 2004 presentation [selenic.com], Mackall has achieved a linux 2.6 kernel weighing in at a mere 363K, and others have reportedly managed a kernel as small as 191K.
Some of the linux-tiny ideas have been making their way into the mainline kernel, so this isn't just a special-purpose patchset - it's really a proving ground for kernel size minimization techniques.
Re:Distributions vs Kernel Design (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is that by pushing features to install packages you expose things that can't be installed as indicators of kernel design flaws.
I was just suggesting Greenblatt pick some dependency management system into which to push features he finds superfluous to the kernel and then ask real hard questions about why the kernel can't support some drivers being installed from such a dependency manager -- why they must be compiled into the kernel.
putting your $0.02 to work (Score:2, Interesting)
Grain of salt... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not saying that he doesn't have a point, but what I am suggesting is that he might not have the Linux community's best interest in mind...
okay so... (Score:2, Interesting)
I never understood this out-of-the-box obsession, i mean seriously what type of admin puts an os into production 'out-of-the-box'?
The only part that really bothers me about this, and I say this as someone who has built a career off of programming under the unices, especially Linux- what bothers me about this is that its not the tech-heads that read this and go 'whoa we better find a better solution', its the management- and as a result I have to deal with what some guy who is a journalist and quite probably not really that qualified to talk on the subject has to say, but now its coming from my boss.
Re:The Competition. (Score:2, Interesting)
"To install Linux, one has to check out the hardware, or at least experiment with some of it, try out a few sound cards, graphics cards, etc."
No. It's 2004. I want to do the following:
Give me a model number and a vendor for the following items:
1. An 802.11g cardbus or PCI card as appropriate, known to work without resorting to extreme measures, with the current kernel version.
2. A 3D accelerated video card known to work with the current version, which also supports one or more high-resolution modes on the console.
3. A multi-channel sound card with digital I/O which is fully supported by Linux Audio and MIDI applications, and has driver support in the current version.
4. A voice modem which is fully supported in the current version.
I don't want to "try 10 different ones and return them." I want the vendor to assure *ME* that they work.
Start with the 802.11g PCI card. Which one should I get? Turns out you need more than just a catalog number, because that doesn't guarantee the chipset.
Re:Just my $0.02 (Score:4, Interesting)
Apparently not for you. The neat part about licenses, is that they're so damn easy to cook up. For example: Simple, no? You could say that: Hard, wasn't it?
See, as the licensor, you can put pretty much any term you want. There are *SOME* limitations, but they aren't what you might think.
Ever READ the GPL? It's written in plain English, not Lawyerspeak. (Oh, and IANAL, all that jazz) When dealing with anything legal, lawyerspeak is to English was code is to specifications. It's intentionally a little halting because it's precise.
If you figure your licensed product is worth millions, get an attorney. Otherwise, specify the terms you like, and enjoy!
Re:Just my 5 bytes (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't particularly want debug info, but I do want Sysrq.
My kernel is 1.6 MB, and I only have support for my hardware compiled in.
TFA makes no sense. So Whats the real message? (Score:2, Interesting)
It really does not make any sense at all for anybody in a developer position to complain about the kernel being bloated when it can be pruned to suite their needs. If I were to take the article at face value it means Sam Greenblatt is a complete moro^H^H^H^H purist who thinks along the lines of 640K ought to be enough for everyone. I wouldn't like to think of him that way because if thats true the implications would be far ominous than I could imagine.
So I'm guessing the real agenda is hidden between the words. I have several possible lines that makes sense.
!! Warning !!
What follows are wild speculations.
Use your own judgement on this.
CA might be wanting to change how the kernel is distributed and about who is going to pay for it. In other words CA wants to pass on the buck onto Linus to produce a server branch and a desktop branch of the kernel, because they don't want to hire an extra worker to do the job. Hence their gripe.
Or
I got this idea from this quote from TFA.
For some unknown reason CA don't want to have Xen embedded into the kernel. Not because of the bloat. Remember the kernel can be pruned. Also its assumed in this case hiring an extra hand isn't a problem. Maybe Greenblatt has a friend working at VMware.
Or
This is a promotion for Xen meant to improve its awareness amongst the community. disguised as a a controversial statement.
I did a word count on the two portions of the article. First half of the article about bloated kernel and the second half of the article about Xen. The results are quite revealing.
$ wc -c first_half
1621
$ wc -c second_half
2030
OMG! more than half the article is about Xen!
Not that its a bad thing to promote Xen. I actually like it. Although I don't think a good software needs to do any kind of covert promotion to be particularly popular.
Anybody else have a better explanation that makes sense?
BTW my kernel is just over 2 Megs on Gentoo.
$ du -h kernel*
2.1M kernel-2.6.11-hardened-r1
This is just silly. (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't see what the problem is.