Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 22nd Sep 2009 15:34 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Linux During the roundtable discussion at LinuxCon this year, Linus Torvalds made some pretty harsh remarks about the current state of the Linux kernel, calling it "huge and bloated", and that there is no plan in sight to solve the problem. At the same time, he also explained that he is very happy with the current development process of the kernel, and that his job has become much easier.
Thread beginning with comment 385729
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Linux needs a design
by Kebabbert on Wed 23rd Sep 2009 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Linux needs a design"
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

"Now, Solaris does have an external stable ABI/API for drivers, while Linux does not. But what good is it doing for Solaris? Where's the thriving third-party driver community for Solaris?
If you think there are no advantages in avoiding the commitment on a stable API/ABI, then you should think about why Linux is now way more successful than Solaris."

Do you really believe Linux is more successful than Solaris because Linux has no stable ABIs? Then Solaris should ditch it's stable ABI and at once we will see Solaris being more widespread again! I will tell Larry Ellison this! Thank you for your analysis. AIX and Windows should follow. But... heck, Windows has no stable ABIs, and it is successful. Maybe you are right? Backwards compatibility must be ditched to get successful? Huh? Maybe you have found the solution!?



"As for making a good design: Linux has no design. At least on any kernel-wide scale. And picking up what I said above, this is what makes Linux so successful.

The kernel evolves according to the current requirements. There is no over-engineering or over-design. But there is also no restrictions on change, so the faults and shortcomings can be fixed when they're found."

Yes, that is the problem with Linux. Linux has no design. Everything changes all the time. New code swaps in all the time. This introduces new bugs. It is said that Windows requires SP1 before the bugs get ironed out. It takes time. What happens if the code gets swapped out for new code all the time? Then new bugs will be introduced all the time. Which makes Linux unstable. This constantly moving target is not good for Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Linux needs a design
by CrLf on Wed 23rd Sep 2009 18:52 in reply to "RE[4]: Linux needs a design"
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

Do you really believe Linux is more successful than Solaris because Linux has no stable ABIs?


Linux is more successful than Solaris because it has a development model that allows for the participation of individuals and companies each with different goals for the final product. Flexibility is a part of that formula, not the only reason, no.

It is said that Windows requires SP1 before the bugs get ironed out. It takes time. What happens if the code gets swapped out for new code all the time? Then new bugs will be introduced all the time. Which makes Linux unstable. This constantly moving target is not good for Linux.


It isn't? It looks like it is working to me. I have had absolutely zero problems on my Linux servers.

And having no overall design does not mean that individual components have no design, or are badly designed or badly programmed.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Linux needs a design
by Kebabbert on Wed 23rd Sep 2009 19:54 in reply to "RE[5]: Linux needs a design"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Linux is more successful than Solaris, not because of the technology, because Linux sucks tech wise. Look at BTRFS, what is that? A ZFS wannabe. And then you have DTrace wannabees. etc. I saw a list of SUN tech that Linux had copied and it was huge. Things like NFS(?) and what not. Cant remember that huge list.

Windows has worse tech than Linux and Solaris, and Windows is more successful than both.

Linux is more successful than Solaris because of Politics and that you can found a huge Linux company and be a USD billionaire. Look at RedHat. No one can found a Solaris company and become a billionare. Because SUN owns Solaris, the official distro. But no one owns Linux, there is no official distro. If Linus T released an official distro, his distro, then all other distros would die. And Linux would loose momentum. You can not found a huge FreeBSD company and become a dollar billionare, because someone "owns" freebsd.

Linux, no one owns. Any one can get rich. There are volunteers that do all the hard work with coding, and your company just packages the stuff and sell it. Of course everyone goes there. No work, and just get the money. For free. Like selling air. Where money is, people and companies goes. If Linus T said "this Linux distro is the official" then everyone would loose interest in Linux. Just like FreeBSD. Or Solaris. You can not become a Solaris billionare.



And good that you dont have problems with upgrading your Linux servers. Others have:
"I have been grumbling for the last week about breaking compatibility. That needs to be avoided. Just last saturday, I had to roll back a new Centos environment from 2.6.30 to 2.6.24 because the kernel dropped a function call after 2.6.27 that a library I use needs. The developers of the library have not made an upgrade available, and I can't switch at this time.

I personally have not noticed any significant improvements in the kernel for quite a few releases now. I actually try to avoid upgrading my kernel on my workstation, but my package manager makes this into a royal PITA because I don't have an option to say "don't bug me about this...I don't want to."

Edited 2009-09-23 19:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2