Kernel 3.0?

Whether you are using Linux on the desktop or as a server, it's still good that you're using Linux. Linux related questions go here.

Moderator: General Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Todd_Z
Forum Regular
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:53 pm
Location: U Michigan

Kernel 3.0?

Post by Todd_Z »

Has anyone seen news about the linux kernel coming out with a new major release?

It seems that linux for the desktop has been making leaps and bounds in terms of software and drivers, but the core doesn't do much except for minor releases here and there.

I understand that this is a GIANT project to release a new stable kernel written from the ground up, but on the otherhand, the kernel needs a rebuild. I don't think i will get many opinions against that...
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

Image
User avatar
volka
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 8391
Joined: Tue May 07, 2002 9:48 am
Location: Berlin, ger

Post by volka »

I don't get it either. But there was a long (probably still ongoing) discussion back in 2002 2003? 2001? wether the development kernel 2.5 should lead to kernel release 3.0.
User avatar
Todd_Z
Forum Regular
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:53 pm
Location: U Michigan

Post by Todd_Z »

I don't know which part specifically you don't understand.

Kernel 2.6's source is very bloated and there are many improvements that could be made.
Most other software for linux has been making leaps and bounds, i.e. gnome, openoffice, etc.
It's time for kernel 3.0, no?
User avatar
feyd
Neighborhood Spidermoddy
Posts: 31559
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
Location: Bothell, Washington, USA

Post by feyd »

Last I checked, it took quite some time between releases of minor versions of the kernal. A ground-up rewrite of the kernal is probably prohibitive (at least by the team that actively makes the kernal.)

Although it's been a while since I had my ear to the ground about the kernal. :roll:
User avatar
Todd_Z
Forum Regular
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 9:53 pm
Location: U Michigan

Post by Todd_Z »

Don't you feel like the kernel is just a hack job at this point? Whenever something needs to be built in, its just hacked into the source, instead of having the code matured to properly implement [this doesn't include modules obviously, just the core code base]
User avatar
Christopher
Site Administrator
Posts: 13596
Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 7:54 pm
Location: New York, NY, US

Post by Christopher »

Todd_Z wrote:Kernel 2.6's source is very bloated and there are many improvements that could be made.
Todd_Z wrote:Don't you feel like the kernel is just a hack job at this point?
I am a little bewildered by statements like these. I am not sure that there is any way to respond. Nor do I have the impressions of the Linux kernel or its development that you have. Do you have some specifics to back up such sweeping statements?
(#10850)
alex.barylski
DevNet Evangelist
Posts: 6267
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Post by alex.barylski »

What part of the Kernel do you feel is bloated???

My argument goes something like this. The Kernel, especially Linux, is a very modular, well developed peice of software. :P

It's probably the most efficient, well tested and well developed software on the planet.

Kernel developers are typically *very* experienced programmers with a solid understanding of modern operating system architecture...

Linux follows a monolithic approach in kernel design as opposed to microkernel design. To change this (I would think) requires a rewrite of the kernel.

That design difference is the credo of linux developers. It was selected for it's runtime performance and will likely never change (That bloated feeling you refer to). You want a more dynamic microkernel, perhaps it's time you sit down and start reading about OS design??? :)

Anything dynamic, typically incurs a performance cost in terms of clock cycles due to the required message passing, etc.

Most Linux based software follow this approach and is why (I assume) so many Linux applications have so many compiler switches to enable or disable features at compile time, so the resultant binary runs like greased lightning.

Linux modules (or; PHP, Apache, etc) by virtue of being open source and having a compiler available to anyone, effectively achieves many of the theoretical advantages of microkernel design without introducing the performance penelties. ;)

The Linux kernel is a well developed peice of software...not sure what you meant by your statements, but I think you may have the wrong impression.

Cheers :)
Post Reply