lucky13
Group: Members
Posts: 1478
Joined: Feb. 2007 |
 |
Posted: July 27 2007,19:13 |
 |
There's no confusion. I can empathize with Con Kolivas' feelings, but has he been able to substantiate that his patches are improvements in how 2.6 works on desktops? I hate to say it sounds like sour grapes, but it sounds like sour grapes.
As for 2.4 development, what I read and how I intepreted it's not quite so dire:
| Quote | | I'm open to merge the small updates required to maintain such systems running (eg: PCI IDs and such), but I will generally refuse all patches which add support for new desktop or notebook-specific hardware, unless the people present very convincing arguments. |
IOW, older hardware will continue to be supported. If you make a convincing case, changes can be made for *NEW* HARDWARE AND *LAPTOP* SUPPORT. That's not unreasonable. You don't need to backport support for every piece of *new* hardware. Improvements can continue to be offered for older hardware.
I don't blame him. Look at all the dross being thrown into both kernel streams as it is. How the hell does supporting trivial stuff like "splash" improve interaction between kernel and hardware? All it does is mask it! That kind of crap belongs in userspace (and in operating systems that hide everything else like code from users), not built into a kernel or supported by it (compare LOC of Linux 2.6 and Linux 2.0 and then Minix 3). How long has DSL resisted updating kernels and even once reverting to an older kernel after updating? Isn't part of the reason size of newer kernels?
From my perspective, it's only logical that kernel development will move beyond supporting older architecture like i386 and i486 (as there are fewer and fewer of those machines) and that lines have to be drawn between what's supported in 2.4 and 2.6 just as there were when previous kernel lines were deprecated. There's a limit to how many new features should be backported because it's unlikely and impractical.
As far as Kolivas goes, the basic architecture support is the same on an i686 whether it's used in server or on a desktop, and the kernel can be custom configured to suit needs whether it's desktop, cluster, or in an embedded device. It's the job of a distro to make Linux suitable for specific uses (desktop, server, embedded, cluster), not of the kernel development team. Kernel developers can make the job easier of those configuring kernels for particular uses.
Who wins? Desktop distros? Linux doesn't have much marketshare in desktops as it is. It's also the view of the kernel development team that the desktop isn't the future; the desktop is rapidly becoming the past as it increasingly gives way to mobile devices. I'm sure there are mobile device vendors (like Palm!!) who wish more of their own submitted patches were included to make their jobs easier, too. The place where Linux actually prevails is in servers. That's where the biggest demand is and remains for kernel development. That's why there's a bias towards server performace. I disagree with Kolivas, though, that it's exclusively at the expense of desktop or mobile performance and that it's an either-or situation. All he's done by quitting is make it more difficult for his position to prevail.
--------------
"It felt kind of like having a pitbull terrier on my rear end."
-- meo (copyright(c)2008, all rights reserved)
|
.
DSL Market ,
Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
