Re: starting with 2.7

[John Richard Moser <nigelenki@comcast.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1



M. Edward Borasky wrote:
| On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 12:25 -0500, John Richard Moser wrote:
|
|
|>Try /join #hardened-gentoo and ask about how stable 2.6 is once.  The
|>hardened team has been having a hard time because 2.6 keeps changing.
|>
|>I was told that gentoo-dev-sources and hardened-dev-sources will become
|>gentoo-sources and hardened-sources when they're considered stable.
|>They're still -dev.  What does this tell you?
|>
|><@tseng> stable? sometimes
|><@tseng> production, nope.
|
|
| Well, the story I'm hearing on the Gentoo mailing lists (I don't
| frequent IRC) is that the next Gentoo release, which is scheduled for
| sometime this month (Jan 2005) will be 2.6-based, although, like all
| Gentoo releases, you will be able to customize it to 2.4 if that's what
| you want and/or need to do. There is some pushback from those who fear
| 2.6 isn't ready for prime time. I think 2.6 is winning and will prevail.
|
| Gentoo is admittedly an "expert's" distro and I am admittedly biased
| towards it. But there are simply too many things that aren't *ever*
| going to get done in 2.4, especially with RHEL 4 being 2.6-based. I held
| off on 2.6 because of a few minor glitches -- a touchy touchpad on the
| laptop and some difficulties with dhcpcd picking up an IP address from
| my cable modem were the worst ones. They're fixed now, and 2.6.10 has
| the best audio latency performance "out of the box" ever for a Linux
| kernel, and I had a three-day weekend -- case closed! Hooray for 2.6!
| Long Live 2.6! 2.6 or Fight! Give Me 2.6 Or Give Me Death! :)
|

That's fine for a home user.  What about a kernel hacker, a distributor,
a business, people who have to clean up after this mess. . . .

|
|>I wouldn't recommend it to businesses, because a fuck-up means they lose
|>money.  You ever see a production server go down?  You can totally wipe
|>out a business that way.  If a glitch trashes the filesystem, you might
|>as well stop trying.  Unless of course you can ship your off-site
|>backups back on-site and restore the whole damn thing to working order
|>within 3 days.  Better hope the kernel you were using when it was
|>working is in the backups.
|
|
| A poorly managed IT operation can wipe out a business, whether the
| "production server" is Windows-based, RHEL-based, Tru64-based,
| Solaris-based, "woody"-based or Gentoo-based. Much as I hate Windows, I
| work in a company with a Windows-based IT infrastructure, and I go out
| of my way to help them keep it safe and productive, despite my obvious
| Linux bias. That's part of being a good corporate citizen.
|

true

| Are you claiming that a 2.4-kernel-based IT infrastructure has less need
| for **competent** security, privacy, performance and data integrity
| policies, procedures and people than a 2.6-kernel-based one, all other
| things being equal?
|


Not at all

I'm claiming that an IT infrastructure that has to support 2.6 as-is
will be wildly more complex and more expensive than one supporting a
truly stable one with the same efficiency.  It keeps changing.  New
features must be added that aren't amply tested (and due to the 2.6
development structure, ample testing before mainline integration is much
more difficult).

|
|>| Given all that, what about 2.6 and 2.7? Here's where I break away from
|>| the mainstream -- big-time. I'd like to see 2.6 live forever as the
|>| "stable general purpose kernel of choice for multiple architectures"
|>| that it is today. And I'd like to see the broad "kernel community" move
|>| to a 64-bit-only microkernel-based "GNU/Whatever".
|>
|>Dreamer.
|
|
| Exactly! I am a dreamer, and proud of it! I want a nice 64-bit real-time
| lab/studio for algorithmic composition and synthesis of music. I want
| something that can address memory over a gigabyte without contorting the
| memory management into a bizarre scheme reminiscent of the "good old
| days" when one had to run big programs in little machines using (gag,
| retch) overlays!
|
| Are you aware how large 2^64 - 1 is? Don't they teach the old fable
| about grains of rice on the chessboard any more? :) Please don't make me
| go back to the days when Thomas Watson said there was a world-wide
| market for ten to twelve computers, or when Ken Olsen asked why anyone
| would want a computer in their home! Please don't make me use a LISP or
| R or whatever language that can't handle a data structure larger than
| 2^32 - 1! Please don't make me talk to my computer in 7-bit code on a
| 300-baud modem! Is this the 21st century? Am I the *only* dreamer?
|
|
|>Linus hates microkernels :o
|
|
| When Linus chose the "monolithic yet modular" approach for Linux over
| the microkernel approach, the state of the art in compilers and hardware
| was on his side. We're talking 386, GCC 1, right? It was the correct
| decision. I don't think he "hates" microkernels (Linus, correct me if
| I'm wrong :), he simply made an implementation decision to go another
| way. Again, I'm a dreamer. :)
|
| By the way, I never owned a 286 or 386. I went straight from 80186/DOS
| 5.0 to a Pentium MMX running Windows 95. I missed out on a lot of fun,
| eh?
|

Ask Linus to start making 3rd party binary module support a reality then.

|

- --
All content of all messages exchanged herein are left in the
Public Domain, unless otherwise explicitly stated.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFB4KAxhDd4aOud5P8RAuWVAJ48W17owI6ifRJzVPUse5M8NnMW5wCggaYg
sisVibORA6j/4yJEz070BoA=
=i9zy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----