Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux Kernel Moves To Github

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the moving-to-better-quarters-on-campus dept.

Cloud 142

An anonymous reader writes "Linus Torvalds has announced that he will be distributing the Linux kernel via Github until kernel.org servers are fully operational following the recent server compromise. From the announcement: 'But hey, the whole point (well, *one* of the points) of distributed development is that no single place is really any different from any other, so since I did a github account for my divelog thing, why not see how well it holds up to me just putting my whole kernel repo there too?'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great (5, Interesting)

Mensa Babe (675349) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307768)

I clicked the link and here's what I got: "Server Error 500 - An unexpected error seems to have occurred. Why not try refreshing your page? Or you can contact us if the problem persists." with a cute parallax scrolling animation of GitHub logo falling down the Grand Canion. I've never seen 500 error on GitHub before.

Linus writes: "since I did a github account for my divelog thing, why not see how well it holds up to me just putting my whole kernel repo there too?"

Why not? Because you just broke GitHub! That's why!

And now let's all remain silent while the instant, distributed, cpu-intensive, encrypted https slashdotting of GitHub starts in 3... 2... 1...

Re:Great (4, Interesting)

Trepidity (597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307794)

I'm not sure if you meant this specifically, but as a nitpick, https itself is hardly CPU-intensive these days [imperialviolet.org] . GitHub might be doing CPU-intensive stuff to service requests, but if so, it's more likely to have something to do with their backend than with https.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307796)

GitHub just reported having some issues on their Twitter account: https://twitter.com/github/status/110695509315952640
Seems to be resolved now. No indication if it's related to Slashdot.

Re:Great (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37310612)

Slashdot no longer gets the huge traffic it used to nor the ability to "Slashdot" large sites. Even the numbers of comments posted to most articles is lower than it used to be.

FTFY: Re:Great (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307814)

And now let's all remain silent while the instant, distributed, cpu-intensive, encrypted https slashdotting of GitHub starts in 3... 2... 1...

AND FORK!

Re:FTFY: Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307954)

And now let's all remain silent while the instant, distributed, cpu-intensive, encrypted https slashdotting of GitHub starts in 3... 2... 1...

AND FORK!

You wouldn't dare...

Re:FTFY: Re:Great (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308074)

I for one welcome our new AnonCowardix kernel overlords..

Re:Great (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307824)

You should give it rest, come back in a month or two. I see that you are being outed quite frequent.

Re:Great (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307834)

18min ago: "Our DB has blacklisted one of our frontend hosts due to connection errors. We're looking into it."
7min ago: "Our DB and frontend are friends again. The site is back up."

From their Twitter feed [twitter.com]

Their response time to this problem is a great advertisement for their services.

TripMaster Monkey, is that you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307864)

Are you TripMaster Monkey?

Slashdottings aren't what they once were. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307924)

Slashdottings just aren't what they once were. As long as you're not using a stupid PHP blog system hitting a MySQL database with absolutely no caching in place, it's easy for a cheap VPS to handle the load without any problems.

Part of this is because there seems to be far fewer Slashdot readers than in the past. The stupider ones have moved to Digg, reddit and Hacker News, apparently.

Hardware is also so much faster today that even an old school Slashdotting would be only a minor spike.

Re:Slashdottings aren't what they once were. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37308056)

The stupider ones have moved to Digg, reddit and Hacker News, apparently.

So, where did the smarter go?

Re:Slashdottings aren't what they once were. (2)

doti (966971) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308810)

offline

Re:Slashdottings aren't what they once were. (4, Insightful)

Teancum (67324) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308098)

Part of this is because there seems to be far fewer Slashdot readers than in the past. The stupider ones have moved to Digg, reddit and Hacker News, apparently

While I will admit there have been many Slashdot readers who have moved to other websites, I think the issue here is more that as a percentage of the web community Slashdot no longer is the dominate community of discussion. This is more because there simply are fewer geeks running around on the web any more as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and other "social media" sites have more ordinary non-geek people.... any one of which can also post a link going viral that will dwarf anything Slashdot would ever produce. Many of the larger websites routinely expect a large number of visitors for some things they post, and can more than compensate for what happens when they become the focus of a lot of people at once.

Slashdot will still bring a huge number of visitors to a site and for somebody doing a homebrew website it can be a big deal, but I'd agree that due to improvements in hardware and better software management there isn't nearly so much of a problem any more.

Re:Slashdottings aren't what they once were. (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309050)

Not to mention that slashdot's interface has progressively gotten worse, making it a real pain to use. Although, it did get better recently. I boycotted until it got usable again. It seems a lot faster recently.

Re:Slashdottings aren't what they once were. (1)

deains (1726012) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309668)

I guess Moore's Law doesn't apply to slashdotting. :P

Re:Slashdottings aren't what they once were. (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 3 years ago | (#37310628)

Part of this is because there seems to be far fewer Slashdot readers than in the past. The stupider ones have moved to Digg, reddit and Hacker News, apparently.

Actually, most of the normal people who want actual discussion left for those sites, leaving hardcore fanboys here who either troll anonymously or post obvious karma whoring posts that just repeat some obvious belief that the community has (Microsoft is evil, Google is great, piracy is awesome, etc.). Finding insightful posts has gotten more difficult than ever before, and the bizarre moderation trends don't help--everyone is using Underrated/Overrated modifiers like crazy, which don't show up in meta-moderation.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37308908)

Behold: the power of Ruby

Re:Great (1)

rim_namor (2454342) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309234)

Oh, come on, you are just being negative. They is at least trying to do something different, give him a chance. It's not like he has done anything before that was anywhere near a success. Let him play with the guttenhub and lunux kranel.

I hope github people dont faint on the load... (1)

AlexiaDeath (1616055) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307808)

Because it's gonna bite :) Its working now btw...

Re:I hope github people dont faint on the load... (3, Funny)

sgbett (739519) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307904)

Maybe they were just taking a second to resolve the paradox of Linux distributing itself!

"Its working now btw..." (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307942)

Its working now btw...

Wasn't that the understatement of the hour, to say the least. ;)

Just saying. (-1, Offtopic)

knuthin (2255242) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307818)

Very high chance this thread will turn into a git vs Hg flame.

Re:Just saying. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307838)

Can we just agree that both are awesome and ClearCase _really_ sucks?

*frustrated user*

Re:Just saying. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37308832)

agreed (former frustrated user).

I learned to bend clearcase to (partly) do my bidding by keeping patch sets and using a combination of diff, patch, and scripts around cleartool merge nodata and others.
After that it was almost usable (since I didn't see clearcase that much anymore down below at all).

Re:Just saying. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307842)

No one uses Mercurial.

Re:Just saying. (4, Insightful)

underqualified (1318035) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308678)

There's this little project called Firefox that uses Mercurial. You might have heard of them.

another slashvertisement! (2)

Jose (15075) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307860)

pfft...this is clearly a slashvertisement for Linus' divelog!

Re:another slashvertisement! (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#37310240)

I saw Linus' divelog. Nothing to get excited about. Now, if he were MUFF diving, and he managed to stay down for the same length of time, I'd be impressed. In fact, I'd consider taking lessons!

Why resort to vague stuff /again/?! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307888)

It amazes me how Torvalds always manages to direct his attention to vague stuff for Linux and never seemingly attempts to try stuff out which has been around for ages.

Take the version control system. No; not the current one but the first one. Instead of relying on one of the dozens of (very capable) OSS solutions out there he picked some vague commercial product which could be used freely, sort of... And when he eventually had to change it turned out to be quite rough (go figure!).

And now here's another example. Why can't he rely on sites which have proven themselves time and time again? Why not try sourceforge for example?

Here's my prediction: right now this site is "free for OSS". kernel.org will raise a massive load (so will slashdot). How long before policies change and people will need to cough up in order to reach kernel source code?

Deja vu!

Re:Why resort to vague stuff /again/?! (2)

makomk (752139) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307928)

Sourceforge is quite obnoxious these days; most modern open source projects seem to use github instead. The Linux kernel is hardly the first big project they've hosted...

Re:Why resort to vague stuff /again/?! (2)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307950)

First, Github has been around for quite some time now and is just hosting for Git - hardly "vague" (is that the word you were looking for even?) and by your argument shouldn't sourceforge also cost money now? You know that massive load also comes with massive numbers of visitors and publicity and bandwidth is cheap now right? They are getting free direct advertising to programmers all over the net. How is that bad for them exactly?

Re:Why resort to vague stuff /again/?! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307972)

Here is an overview [wikipedia.org] of hosting facilities.

Others do seem more capable.

It's just the Linux way. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307984)

What you describe is merely what can be considered "The Linux Way". Take something that somebody else has implemented, re-implement it in a slightly shittier fashion, hype it, and call it a "success".

The kernel itself exhibits this to a high degree. It's inferior to most commercial UNIX implementations (especially Solaris), and far inferior to the FreeBSD kernel, but it gets a lot of hype so foolish people think it's better.

The same goes for git. It's a rather half-assed clone of GNU arch and darcs, and inferior to Mercurial and Fossil, but it gets a lot of hype so foolish people think it's better.

Re:It's just the Linux way. (3, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308318)

oh, those commercial unix implementations or freebsd scale from a handheld device to a supercomputer the size of a city block? FreeBSD is still trying to figure out how to run on 8-way or more SMP without seizing up under high load (check the warning on their web site). Whatever cool things from the past it has, Solaris is going down the tubes under Oracle, to be a one trick pony to run Oracle on their (well, Fujitsu's actually) hardware only. Wail and weep, commercial unix boy, your world is collapsing, and Big Blue and a Penguin are stomping it.

Re:It's just the Linux way. (1)

WorBlux (1751716) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309908)

So why isn't BSD used on the stock exchanges? It simply can't pass messages as quickly. In terms of stability, security, and backwards compatibility, the Unix'es may still be better, but in terms of raw performance and the pace of development Linux wins, and has been winning for a long time.

Re:Why resort to vague stuff /again/?! (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307994)

Here's my prediction: right now this site is "free for OSS". kernel.org will raise a massive load (so will slashdot). How long before policies change and people will need to cough up in order to reach kernel source code?

And how long before every OSS project just moves to a different host as soon as those policies change? Somehow I don't think the policy is going to change.

Re:Why resort to vague stuff /again/?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37308096)

They already seem to keep a 300mb limit in order to prevent abuse. Considering the size of the kernel.org project it wouldn't take very drastic policy changes in order to make it affect bigger projects only.

Its not as if this hasn't been done before mind you!

Re:Why resort to vague stuff /again/?! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308278)

Exactly which capable version control system are you referring? cvs or its step child svn? haha, they're all brittle garbage that don't scale up. Sourceforge gives you a cvs or subversion account (or you can link to your own system, oop that's back to square one)

Re:Why resort to vague stuff /again/?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37308500)

SourceForge supports Git. [sourceforge.net] What's less certain is whether the site can handle the load of the Linux kernel.

But Github addresses makes Linus unhappy! (2)

Dan Dankleton (1898312) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307916)

Has Linus changed his mind in the last week? http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/27628 [gmane.org]

Re:But Github addresses makes Linus unhappy! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37308008)

No, he specifically addressed this in his post:

NOTE! One thing to look out for when you see a new random public
hosting place usage like that is to verify that yes, it's really the
person you think it is. So is it?

You can take a few different approaches:

  (a) Heck, it's open source, I don't care who I pull from, I just want
a new kernel, and not having a new update from kernel.org in the last
few days, I *really* need my new kernel fix. I'll take it, because I
need to exercise my CPU's by building randconfig kernels. Besides, I
like living dangerously.

  (b) Yeah, the email looks like it comes from Linus, and we all know
that SMTP cannot possibly be spoofed, so it must be him.

  (c) Ok, I can fetch that tree, and I know that Linus always does
signed tags, and I can verify the 3.1-rc5 tag with Linus known public
GPG key that I have somewhere. If it matches, I don't care who the
person doing the release announcement is, I'll trust that Linus signed
the tree

  (d) I'll just wait for kernel.org to feel better.

Re:But Github addresses makes Linus unhappy! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37308042)

Has Linus changed his mind in the last week?

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.ext4/27628 [gmane.org]

No. The github address and bad grammar made Linus suspicious about the sender's identity. It had nothing to do with github itself.
See the comments here [lwn.net] .

Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1, Interesting)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#37307936)

Linux kernel is very mature at this point, but some basic functionalities like HAL (hardware abstraction layer) are not present and not even planned. Linus is perhaps happy with the current 3.x state of Linux, but lots of people demand more.. I recently ventured to ReactOS website and have seen lots of activity in the SVN. This is maybe thanks to Google Summer of Code 2011 ReactOS involvement, lots of commits on daily basis in the trunk now, the project seams to be getting in motion again.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307968)

Fuck you Microsoft troll!

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37307974)

Why is HAL such a good idea?

I know that I can move a Linux installation image from one machine to another without a glitch, while Windows (which has a HAL) fails miserably if the source and destination machine vary in any non-trivial way.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (4, Informative)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308082)

Never have I had to agree with a post more.

My employers, not particularly tech-literate, have even seen this and learned it first-hand, and have had to get themselves out of the habit that "moving that server to new hardware means configuring a new one, effectively".

Move a Windows server - you can be in for a world of hurt unless you want to fresh-deploy it every time. Move a Windows-client, historically you'd be prepared for blue-screens because you have the "wrong" processor type (Intel vs AMD - requires disabling some randomly named service via the recovery console, for example), reinstalling the vast majority of the drivers (probably from a 640x480 safe mode) and even then can't be guaranteed to get anything back and working - not to mention activation, DRM, different boot hardware (e.g. IDE vs SATA), etc.

Move a Linux server - unless your OWN scripts do something incredibly precise and stupid with an exact piece of hardware, it will just move over. At worst, you'll have to reassign your eth ports to the names you expect using their MAC address (two seconds in Linux, up to 20 minutes in Windows and a couple of reboots).

Hell, you can even change the kernel entirely, or the underlying filesystem type or any one of a million factors and it will carry on just as before, maybe with a complaint or two if you do anything too drastic but almost always with no ill-effects and a 2-second resolution.

The only piece of hardware on Linux that I have to "fiddle" is a USB-Fax modem that has ZERO identification difference between two examples of itself. You literally have no way to assign them to fax0 and fax1 except guesswork - or relying on the particular USB port name which wouldn't translate between computers. But the install has moved through four machines (from an ancient office workstation with IDE - sacrificial hardware to prove my point about its usefulness -, to a state-of-the-art server class machine with SAS RAID6 and redundant power supplies) without so much as a byte-change - just me swapping the fax modems over rather than bothering to code the change.

And if the hardware breaks? No big deal - pull out the old machine and/or any random desktop machine (or even laptop) with enough ports, image it across byte-for-byte and carry on regardless.

People don't get that this is a BIG feature that they should be pushing - whereas with Windows I've heard (and seen) horror stories about RAID cards not working without the exact controller/firmware/driver combo that they were setup with, blue-screens and hangs and activation dialogs when you attempt something like that, not to mention HOURS of fiddling to get the image running exactly how it was on the original machine (if that's even possible). It goes along with the "plaintext" / "plain file" backup strategy (hell, my /etc/ is under automatic version control with two commands!), etc.

The point of an OS is to make the software independent of the underlying hardware. Windows lost that independence a LONG while ago (Windows NT / 95). Linux still has it because of the underlying design of the whole thing.

Don't even get me started on restoring an "NT Backup" without having the exact correct hotfix/service pack setup that you were backing up from...

Windows didn't lose it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37308266)

Windows gained it.

When looking at the previous versions (XP and prior) you could indeed get into trouble with rolling out on certain hardware and often had to prepare up front (think supplying drivers, etc, etc.).

But that has dramatically changed with the recent Windows versions (server 2k8 & win7). You can move an installation relatively easy from one server onto the other, and it doesn't matter if it runs different hardware (obviously not talking 64bit on 32bit hardware).

Re:Windows didn't lose it (2, Informative)

qbast (1265706) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308480)

Sure it did. I tried booting Windows 7 32bit installation on different machine after laptop died. Both were Fujitsu-Siemens laptops with Intel cpus bought about 2 years apart, but Windows did not boot even in safe mode. Installation CD has some 'boot repair' mode, but it did not manage to do anything useful.

Re:Windows didn't lose it (2)

psavo (162634) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308598)

I'll have to metoo on that. No luck moving installations were it 2k/XP or Win7. But I've moved same linux installation (originally installed debian/potato(?), then repo-shifted to ubuntu/warty) from a HP Vectra (PPro 200) to self-built AMD 1800MP then to current Intel Q6600. And every single time, even though all underlying devices changed, linux just booted up. Sure I did copying from HD to HD to move from older media, but system itself didn't need major hear surgery.

Re:Windows didn't lose it (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308668)

It does, but you have to explicitly tell Windows before you shut it down "Look out, I'm going to be booting on different hardware next time around".

The purpose of this is to aid deploying to dissimilar hardware, and it works just fine. But the scenario you describe, it wouldn't work at all because you wouldn't get the opportunity to shut Windows down in this fashion.

Re:Windows didn't lose it (1)

qbast (1265706) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308800)

It would be a lot more useful if you could select it from boot menu instead.

Not our experience (1)

tfigment (2425764) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308594)

We had some Windows and Linux (CentOS) servers that were running on real hardware. We consolidated them to a VMware ESXi host. The windows images moved over seamlessly and without issue. The core linux box with svn, wiki, bug tracker, ... would not migrate properly so we ended up reinstalling the OS and migrating the apps and data by hand. Overall the windows box took the time to copy the data + 15 minutes and Linux took time to copy the data twice and half a day to troubleshoot and reinstall.

Nothing was particularly special in the configurations of either that I recall. I suppose we used the wrong version of linux or something. Also not sure if a HAL would help or hurt here or if it was something with vmware but it wasn't as easy as you pointed out above.

Maybe if one of the Windows images had trouble it would have been 1+ days instead of .5 days or something but then again they didn't.

Re:Not our experience (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308724)

uh, you do realize vmware contains a huge amount of software to make that seamless M.S. Windows "physical to virtual" thing happen? Now I myself have to migrate Linux machines into vmware for certain clients, I've found easy if application configuration files understood, Linux device naming and assignment priority are understood, fstab understood, and network plugging within vmware done correctly.

Re:Not our experience (2)

decep (137319) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308766)

I assume you used the VMWare Converter P2V tool to move your servers, which works very well for Windows and not as well for Linux. VMWare Converter fiddles with the underlying Windows configuration so the image will work well on VMWare.

If you had used a Linux cloning tool, such as Clonezilla, you probably would have had a different experience. Of course, some older distros such as RHEL4/CentOS4 also did stupid things like the initrd would only contain the SCSI driver it needs to boot on specific hardware. Sometimes you would have to go back to the original hardware and tell it to store/load the SCSI driver for VMWare.

Sometimes it pays to have better sys-admins.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (2, Interesting)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308970)

And don't forget that if you decide to upgrade from a single core processor to a multicore processor that there's an incredibly annoying procedure that involves doing a repair installation just to activate the other cores. Which I've had to do in the past and it's not fun, all because MS doesn't feel like providing a reasonable way of doing it.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (2)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309612)

I know what you're talking about as I have heard of doing it in NT4/2K, but I can say for certain that I did not have to do that in either XP or Vista when I upgraded from an Athlon 64 3200+ to an Athlon X2 3800+. Every computer I've worked on since then has been multicore, so I don't know if I just got lucky or what, but it just worked.

Also, at this point I don't think anyone cares anymore, it's unreasonable to expect such an update for old OSes and no one has to worry about this on new builds since only the lowest of the low end netbook/top CPUs are single core anymore (and at least Intel's has Hyperthreading which results in the SMP kernel being used anyways).

Now if you accidentally install a machine with your BIOS set to emulate IDE on the SATA ports and want to switch it to proper AHCI mode, you're in for a world of hurt. Supposedly that can be fixed by a procedure similar to the SMP switch on Win2K, but I never got it to work and have reinstalled two freshly built machines recently because some BIOSes are stupidly set in that mode.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37309160)

Nit: Move a Linux install from Sata IDE to Sata AHCI. You can test this by changing the bios in some machines. You have to change some things before doing this move or it won't boot.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

KDingo (944605) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309350)

In my first IT job several years ago I made it to create new backup systems there, and by doing so I learned one of the most amazing things about Linux, and that is the cloneability of the entire machine with a single filesystem backup.

I tried to restore one of our webservers in an exercise. From a liveboot environment, I partitioned the disk, formatted it, mounted the filesystems, and rsynced over the root filesystem from backup. After that install the bootloader. I was just amazed that the new system booted up without a hitch (apart from complaining the system wasn't shut down properly); I was floored seeing that and showed all my fellow coworkers =)

Of course I know that in unix everything is a file is a file, and these things are possible, but seeing that in action is an experience. I'm happy that after learning how the innards of a Linux system works, that I was able to apply it.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308630)

> Why is HAL such a good idea?

HAL and lack of standardised DDK is a major Linux turn away factor for many, sometimes you can't go 'open source' if 3rd party technologies and NDAs are involved. It would be more flexible to be able just optionally plug-in stuff without the hassle of sharing..

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

Tomato42 (2416694) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309212)

if only you could forsee that customers will want to use something other than Windows on a 1GHz Geode with 128MB RAM...

Seriously, Linux has huge market share in anything but desktops. If you make hardware you know that someone, somewhere will want to use it with Linux. Making the driver OSS from the start will save you tons of problems in the long run.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (3, Interesting)

DaleGlass (1068434) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309482)

In such a case, I do not care for what you make.

Seriously, if Linux won't support it out of the box, I'm not buying it. Got burned before with printers that only work on specific versions of Windows before, not going to have that again.

I only make an exception for 3D drivers and will stop doing that as soon as I can switch to an open driver.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

WorBlux (1751716) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309998)

I believe CUPS is actually an example of a HAL. A single ppd file will let you drive that printer with any version of CUPS (mac, linux, freebsd, windows, whatever) (x86,x86_64, sparc, alpha, arm. mips, mipsel, PPC). dbus provices some absraction, libkb quite a bit, Fuse as well. There are some abstraction layers available for linux systems, it's just that it's done though the user space rather than the kernel.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

walshy007 (906710) | more than 3 years ago | (#37310308)

ppd's are postscript printer description files. They are near human-readable and only tell what the limits of the printer are. They are used with native postscript printers.

Native postscript printers have a craptonne (compared to non) of processing power and memory, and do most of the work themselves, hell I can plug in a usb stick with pdfs on it into mine and get it to print without a pc at all. Catch is of course you are generally looking at a few thousand for such printers.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37308754)

One word: "virtualization"

Ever heard of it? No? - try it sometime - it's only been around for 20+ years.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

Opyros (1153335) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308992)

HAL did seem like a good idea at first; but tell him just once to "switch to manual hibernation control" and then see what happens!

—Dave Bowman

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

jc79 (1683494) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309458)

That made me chuckle. Oh for mod points...

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (3, Informative)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309084)

before the move
1- remove hidden intel drivers.
2- use something like belarc to get you serial number in case
2- sysprep -pnp -mini -reinstall -nosidgen -reseal -forceshutdown
move the drive or clone it to the new machine

upon reboot windows shall detect the new hardware, it may prompt you for the installation files if your hardware differ wildly but that's all, it may also prompt you for your serial for a reactivation but you noted it at step 2.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#37310344)

Very well put. I was scratching my head over GP's post. "Why is HAL good again?" I was still trying to form up my thoughts as I read your post. Perfect. And, your are exactly right. I've moved a hard drive from one machine to another, and booted without ANY tinkering. The only tinkering that I've found necessary, is when the video drivers are incompatible, ie, an installed nVidia driver on a new machine that has a Radeon installed. And, I believe that all *nix systems have an easy command line utility to purge nVidia or Radeon, then install the opposite driver. That accomplished, the system will boot directly to your favorite GUI desktop environment!

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (3, Insightful)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308026)

A HAL theoretically makes the system portable, but Linux does not have one (normally) and is still quite portable, and Windows has one, and is not ...?

Reactos does not appear to have a HAL (unlike the Windows it is modelled on) but has been ported to other architectures anyway ?

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (2)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308044)

IIRC Windows is quite portable, having run NT on x86, PowerPC, Alpha, MIPS, and I heard Windows 8 runs on ARMv7.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (2)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308112)

no, it takes massive effort and expense which is why Microsoft dropped those other three architectures, and the ARM port is still being worked on. Any windows admin can tell you what a bare metal restore does with the most minute of variations in hardware, it get screwed up. We can get MS Windows the alternate name of "Failure of HAL"

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (2)

reashlin (1370169) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308120)

This is not the portability people are on about.

Take a HDD from a Windows machine and put in in another PC, try booting from it. I am convinced in all but specific circumstances it will not boot.

On the other hand, my current home desktop is a pair of software RAIDed disks that have been in 3 seperate computers now (Motherboard, RAM, video and sound output etc.). I have not had a problem doing this. Sure I now use "eth4" as my default network port but nothing else of note is a problem.

Linux's ability to select the correct driver/modules at boot is what enables this.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

Stupendoussteve (891822) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309918)

Windows will work, it just has to be configured beforehand to do so, specifically running Sysprep to tell Windows to expect to boot on new hardware, at which point it will perform what is essentially a partial reinstall in order to support that new hardware. It is not as plug and play as Linux generally is, but if done correctly works quite well.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

amorsen (7485) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308130)

Quite portable as long as you're little endian and PCI. Good luck if you aren't.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37308156)

Portable means it can be moved to another machine and does not mean can be installed on many types of machine (as you have it).

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37308060)

It already HAS a HAL. It may not be the one you think it needs, but it does have one- so saying it's not present or even planned is being...heh...LAME.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (2)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308474)

So, your definition of "more than Linux" is Windows NT?

Sell it to me. What does ReactOS aim to provide that a modern Linux based distro doesn't already give me? Games? Bleeding edge graphics drivers for, uh, games?

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309462)

Sell it to me. What does ReactOS aim to provide that a modern Linux based distro doesn't already give me? Games? Bleeding edge graphics drivers for, uh, games?

Windows Apps.

I know you were trying to be snarky, but you failed.

Windows users can run just about anything Linux has to offer. Its either been ported to windows natively or will most likely run with cygwin or the like. Certainly anything with any sort of popularity has been ported to Windows.

On the other hand, the inverse is not true. Games, as you noted, are a big gaping hole on the Linux side, in most places where Linux does have some sort of comparable package it could hardly be considered a professional equivalent.

Of course, in reality, ReactOS will just run Windows apps badly.

The solution is to not run an OS that doesn't suite your needs and stop fanboying it up. Linux has its place, but that isn't everywhere.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (4, Informative)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308552)

Linux kernel is very mature at this point, but some basic functionalities like HAL (hardware abstraction layer) are not present and not even planned.

Perhaps you should read this recent article on LWN about Avoiding the OS abstraction trap. The core point to consider that a HAL is a means to an end, not an end in itself. Linux's development doesn't need nor likely should it have a HAL like other closed OSs precisely because it doesn't deal with binary drivers. Instead, code is frequently refractored, reorganized, etc and the main issue is whether the user space ABI stays intact. All pushing a HAL would do is further constrain the kernel to maintaining another set user space ABI, which would likely end up being suboptimal since no HAL is perfect, and devote developer time to something that instead of forming organically as hardware/code demands would wall the expectations and the ability to provide functionality. Such might be great for a platform that's expected to be deployed, be infrequently changed, and for which driver development is a one-off affair, but that's pretty much the antithesis of the Linux kernel.

Linus is perhaps happy with the current 3.x state of Linux, but lots of people demand more..

I don't think Linus is "happy with the current 3.x state of Linux", but I wouldn't be surprised if he's happy with the development process in place that he's a part of that can change the 3.x line towards something better. The Linux kernel is constantly changing. There's unlikely to ever be a state, ie a one point snapshot, where the Linux kernel will ever make most people happy because there's too many people with too many diverse goals and they all desire to change the Linux kernel from what is to what it could be. That's the great thing about an open development model, where people can make that happen. And if nothing else, they can make their own fork of Linux if the Linus tree doesn't make them happy enough.

I recently ventured to ReactOS website and have seen lots of activity in the SVN. This is maybe thanks to Google Summer of Code 2011 ReactOS involvement, lots of commits on daily basis in the trunk now, the project seams to be getting in motion again.

While that's great news for ReactOS, and with no offense to the ReactOS developers, but if I did Linux kernel development, I wouldn't be jumping on board ReactOS development. ReactOS is a noble project and I'm sure in the future I'll get a lot of use out of it, but I view ReactOS as a stopgap project. That is, it's something like wine, which seems more than anything as a way to run the occasional Windows program and to allow those who are using Windows exclusively now to have a path to switching to using Linux (or OpenBSD or whatever) rather exclusively to run the occasional Windows program.

I say this primarily because Windows is a massive beast of an OS, produced through decades of development. Trying to re-implement it with incomplete documentation, reverse engineering, etc is a task like to take many times as long and as such I can even optimistically only see ReactOS as an open Windows 2000 or Windows XP clone for the 2020s or 2030s. Having more developers might speed up the process a bit, but assuming there's already a critical mass of developers to move development forward, I think the mythic man hour and the law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty quickly, especially when it's hard to delegate a lot of the work on things when the things themselves are most a mass of "stuff we don't have documentation for but needs implemented anyways".

Now, if one has a personal interest in having a complete open Windows clone, then please join ReactOS development. I'm certain they'd appreciate the help, even if it doesn't speed up the completing time very much. I certainly commend anyone who works to better an open project that will give advantage to oneself and others. But, I wouldn't seriously consider switching back to Windows or a Windows clone as my main OS without a pretty compelling reason; I wouldn't consider what I use at work my main OS--that's the company's main OS. Similarly, I don't intend to switch window managers any time soon, but I certainly welcome the development of all those that exist.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (3, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308632)

ReactOS suffers from two huge problems:

1. It's still in alpha stage and it's aiming at a moving target. The idea is it will eventually be broadly equivalent to Windows XP/2003 - I confidently predict that by the time it becomes even remotely stable, we will look upon XP/2003 in much the same way as we look upon NT 3.51 today.

2. Patents. We've seen what happens when a disruptive Linux-based product comes on the market with Android - everybody and his dog is suing Google. The fact that Linux doesn't try to ape Windows - combined with support from the likes of IBM - has kept Linux on the server relatively free from lawsuits (with the obvious exception of SCO) - ReactOS doesn't have anywhere near the level of support from large commercial organisations; I can't imagine many smaller companies wanting to publicly support something that is essentially painting a big target on its back and shouting "Hey, Microsoft! Aim here!".

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309074)

the biggest problem is that it tries to replicate a shitty OS, the even if successful is still a failure...

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309106)

Actually, I don't think XP/2003 is all that bad. It's reasonably stable, it does what it says on the tin.

It does tend to over-complicate a lot of tasks that should be very simple, but all commercial software does that to a certain extent.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

Karellen (104380) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308964)

I recently ventured to ReactOS website and have seen lots of activity in the SVN [...] lots of commits on daily basis in the trunk now,

"Lots"? Really? Compared to what? How many do you think is "lots"? The Linux kernel was averaging ~70 commits per day from 2.6.13 - 2.6.27 (source [schoenitzer.de] - that's every day, for more than 3 years) and I'm pretty sure the pace has picked up a fair bit from that in the ~3 years since then, as hinted at by the right hand side of that graph.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309568)

The kernel IS the HAL. A few commercial OSes have additional ABIs defined inside their kernel is due to their closed source nature needing an open public interface. The entire Linux kernel is open, and the entire thing is the HAL.

And sorry to sound snide but ... ReactOS? Seriously? Its a cool concept, but ReactOS by design will always be too out of date to matter. They are reverse engineering an actively developed OS, they have a fraction of a percent of the development resources devoted to it as the OS they are trying to track.

You don't have to be much of an engineer to know that if it takes 500 to build a building, 2 aren't going to be able to tear the building apart to see how it was built and then rebuild it again without any difference at any sort of rate that will matter. Reimplementing a fixed target is one thing, it can be done given enough time, catching up to a moving target when you have less speed/power/energy is impossible.

Re:Time to shift focus to another kernel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37309772)

Looking forward to seeing your Linux HAL implementation. When do you think you will have it done?

Commission (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37308020)

I wonder if Linus got some cash from Github because of this.

Everybody knows that this will translate into more customers ;)

Re:Commission (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309316)

Not really.

It doesn't work that way with niche products that are so closely related. Pretty much anyone that uses Linux and a revision control system knew what Github was a year ago. If they were going to be customers, they would be.

Vintage accounts (1, Funny)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308032)

My "pre linux kernel" vintage Github account is going up on ebay to the highest bidder!

Anybody? ...anybody?

Temporary "move" of the master repo (5, Informative)

Sits (117492) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308038)

Re:Temporary "move" of the master repo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37310570)

Actually, that message is ambiguous -- it doesn't specify whether it's master.kernel.org or github that will be "just a mirror".

Master repo? (1)

Ice Station Zebra (18124) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308856)

Or single point of failure. You be the judge.

Re:Master repo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37309358)

What single point of failure? I'm sure it'll be mirrored. If GitHub fails then it can go somewhere else, Linus is putting it there because kernel.org is down

Obvious Linus recourse (1)

adosch (1397357) | more than 3 years ago | (#37308896)

I wouldn't find this surprising at all. I don't see this as temporary by any means, but more of a 'loosing-faith' factor; I'd do the same with my life's prized work as well. I bet from now on, github is the main pickup for latest/stable/greatest kernel releases. I personally hope it doesn't, and perhaps becomes another avenue to get the kernel source.

Re:Obvious Linus recourse (1)

Stupendoussteve (891822) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309924)

You see wrong. Linus has already said, when kernel.org is back up completely, github will be just a mirror [gmane.org] .

Re:Obvious Linus recourse (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 3 years ago | (#37310168)

Or, it could be that you're a total moron.

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 6:09 PM, Mithrandir lavabit.com> wrote:
> Just wondering: when master.kernel.org gets back up, will this be 'just a
> mirror' or a separate place to develop? Perhaps I'm thinking too far ahead. :-)

Just a mirror.

                                  Linus

Re:Obvious Linus recourse (0)

adosch (1397357) | more than 3 years ago | (#37310202)

Or you're just a total troll. Go back to your cave.

Github slogan (3, Funny)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 3 years ago | (#37309304)

Github: Your center for decentralized version control!

Or

Github: Your hub for RCS without a hub!

Re:Github slogan (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37309616)

I see what you did there.

All because of a 'minor' security breach (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37310072)

I bet the webmasters at kernel.org are not telling the whole story and as for moving temporarily to github, it should have been mirrored on there a long time ago

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?