×

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!

Torvalds Bemoans Size of RC7 For Linux Kernel 3.5

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the too-big dept.

Upgrades 158

alphadogg writes "A host of small modifications and a large number of system-on-a-chip and PowerPC fixes inflated the size of release candidate No. 7 for Version 3.5 of the Linux kernel, according to curator Linus Torvalds' RC7 announcement, made on Saturday. Torvalds wasn't happy with the extensive changes, most of which he said he received Friday and Saturday, saying 'not cool, guys' in the announcement. However, the occasionally combustible kernel curator didn't appear to view this as a major setback. 'Now, admittedly, most of this is pretty small. The loadavg calculation fix patch is pretty big, but quite a lot of that is added comments,' he wrote, referring to the subroutine that measures system workload."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

158 comments

wow (4, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about 2 years ago | (#40665933)

Linus is getting bitchy lately.

Re:wow (5, Insightful)

PreparationH67 (1971850) | about 2 years ago | (#40665971)

Eh, at bit. But I will defend his ripping into the opensuse devs about using the root password for everything until my last breath.

Re:wow (2)

Fujisawa Sensei (207127) | about 2 years ago | (#40667577)

No shit.

But it's still not enough to make me switch back to fedora, ubuntu, kubuntu, or gentoo.

Re:wow (0)

fnj (64210) | about 2 years ago | (#40668309)

How about a real distro, like CentOS or Scientific Linux?

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40668481)

Apparently, you have never used a real distro.

RH is shite (and its derivatives inherit that trait). It came along later than most other distros, and it was worse, and continued to be worse as it "matured/festered". It only gained traction because of IBMs backing, and it is commercial (that is important to some folks).

RH can't in-place upgrade WTF?!!!! (RH says don't do it)
RH package manager shite-- until v5 replaced uptodate, you couldn't even uninstall with it, and have it handle dependencies WTF?!!!
Next to zero software packaged. Hell, v4 didn't even have clamav packaged. WTF?!!!
RH doesn't accept patches even for data corruption bugs from the FS author-- tells him they will sync when they do their kernel source sync-- to hell with their users who lose data (reiserfs).

Ones like Slack and Debian were around half a decade before RH, and were even better then, than RH is now. Really, anything is probably better for objective definitions of better.

Re:wow (5, Funny)

Trashcan Romeo (2675341) | about 2 years ago | (#40665973)

There are few things more painful than a swollen kernel.

Re:wow (5, Informative)

osu-neko (2604) | about 2 years ago | (#40666333)

I think the point is not so much the swelling but the fact that this is a huge bunch of stuff to be thrown in during an RC cycle, between rc6 and rc7. You're not really supposed to be doing anything major to a release candidate...

Re:wow (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#40667277)

What is his policy on RC fixes anyway?
It seems to be to simply accept fixes for bugs.
He could also opt to remove new features that require large bug fixes and include them in the next release cycle.

Re:wow (5, Funny)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#40666723)

There are few things more painful than a swollen kernel.

It's nothing an antibiosic shot wouldn't fix.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666943)

Oy. If only I had not used up all my mod points ....

Re:wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40667451)

so you could mod your own post down Tough Love? come on, no one is laughing at that horseshit. what a horrible attempt at humor. go fuck yourself

Re:wow (5, Funny)

morcego (260031) | about 2 years ago | (#40666003)

Linus is getting bitchy lately.

Yeah, and RMS was talking non-sense yesterday. What is the world coming to ...

Re:wow (3, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 2 years ago | (#40666319)

Yeah, and RMS was talking non-sense yesterday. What is the world coming to ...

Yesterday? I'm a big fan of RMS - since before the beard - but the day he doesn't talk non-sense will be news.

Re:wow (5, Funny)

morcego (260031) | about 2 years ago | (#40666403)

Yeah, and RMS was talking non-sense yesterday. What is the world coming to ...

Yesterday? I'm a big fan of RMS - since before the beard - but the day he doesn't talk non-sense will be news.

Exactly my point. Just like the day Linus doesn't get bitchy :)

Geez, I figured we were all past the <sarcasm> tag already.

Re:wow (4, Funny)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | about 2 years ago | (#40668205)

Geez, I figured we were all past the <sarcasm> tag already.

</sarcasm>
Ah, there, that's better...
If you don't close your sarcasm tags, my sarcasm parser will get messed up and my whole day gets very confusing.

Re:wow (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666013)

Linus always was, and still remains, a ginat festering vag of bitchy.

Fuck him. Fuck him right in his festering vag.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666947)

I assume ginat is gina network address translation?

Re:wow (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40667213)

Gastrointestinal network address translation. The details are a bit mucky to me at this point.

Re:wow (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666035)

Implying that this is any different from any Linux user ever.

Re:wow (1, Redundant)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 2 years ago | (#40666037)

"Linus is getting bitchy lately."

I was thinking this exact line before I clicked into the comments. Good to know I am not the only one who noticed.
However, I might be the only one to not really give a damn.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666057)

Random-ass email list comments are news as long as it's a celebrity typing them.

Re:wow (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666259)

Obligatory. [xkcd.com]

Re:wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666393)

Luckily this is the LKML, so the hyphen works in either location.

Re:wow (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666143)

The only people who bitch more than Linux users about problems brought upon themselves, are Vegetarians/Vegans

He's a better man than me! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666315)

If I were in Linus' shoes working on the same goddamn thing for a couple of decades, I think I would have resorted to fire bombing by now.

I think he should pass the torch to someone else and go do something fun - or just be a devoted dad.

Re:wow (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666499)

Linus has always been bitchy.
It is why Linux is the way it is now.

If it wasn't for his bitchiness, it would be Windows. Yes, I am not kidding.
There'd be ENTERPRIIIISE CODING brilliance in there, AKA useless bloat for stuff nobody should EVER, IN THE HISTORY OF EVER, have access to, and countless other things. (up YOURS Microsoft! )
What's that, writing a driver are you? If it isn't fully descriptive in code, you're fired!
What's that? You saved a huge number of cycles by using a Goto there? FIRED, we want more lines! (I'm not even kidding, Linus had to defend a Goto in a driver-level file, this is how mad this anti-Goto retardedness is these days, kids man)
So on and so fourth.

Hey, at least he isn't a Ballmer. Nobody can beat ol' monkey boy.
Developers developers developers deve... oh go away developers we don't want you in Windows 8 anym... no sorry we were just kidding! ... honest!
Linus is always solid.
Without him, Linux would turn in to PHP. Look what happened to that. PHP is plain awful now. It started off with a good idea, then all the amateurs took control and ruined it. You don't want that now, do you?

Re:wow (2)

fatphil (181876) | about 2 years ago | (#40667281)

"Without [Linus], Linux would turn in to PHP. Look what happened to that. PHP is plain awful now. It started off with a good idea, then all the amateurs took control and ruined it."

There are a remarkable number of bodgers in the linux kernel too. The general code quality is not that high. In particular from some SoC vendors. He has to trust that if they're selling that code to customers who need it to work, then it probably works. And if it doesn't, then they are the maintainers responsible for fixing it. Unfortunately the customers are sometimes as incompetent as the chipset vendors, and don't know what they're being sold. I promise you, sometimes it really isn't pretty. Fortunately the core parts seem to be under much tighter rein, but they're still far from bulletproof.

Re:wow (3)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about 2 years ago | (#40667793)

Unfortunately the customers are sometimes as incompetent as the chipset vendors, and don't know what they're being sold.

Or who to blame... If it doesn't work with Windows it is seen as the manufacturer's fault (as they provided the drivers) but if it doesn't work under Linux it is the kernel dev's fault (as the user doesn't know that the drivers there were written by the manufacturer too) and it is they who are expected to fix the problem. I do not envy them that position!

Re:wow (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | about 2 years ago | (#40667783)

I don't disagree with your general point but..

Without him, Linux would turn in to PHP. Look what happened to that. PHP is plain awful now. It started off with a good idea, then all the amateurs took control and ruined it. You don't want that now, do you?

Really?!

I've not touched PHP for a few years, so I might be wrong about its current status, but from what I gather there have been significant improvements. Objects working properly for one. References too. References to objects specifically. When I was working on some stuff in PHP4 those areas were a mess. I'm also told that chunks of the standard library now have more normalized variants. This was starting when I left the arena, with data access libraries that implemented a generic API (for the most part, with extensions specific to a particular back-end where needed) starting to win over the old modules that offered massively inconsistent interfaces. DB access was not the only place where there was massive inconsistency: because of the organic way the project grew up until that point with each new module mirroring the base libraries API directly with no effort made towards consistency within PHP as a whole, the standard library was awash with it: no two things worked alike and I can't believe that hasn't improved any int he last X years (there were many unhappy about the situation at the time, even amongst those who were ardent PHP users and supporters).

Could you give examples of what is more awful now than it was back in PHP4 prior to PHP5 becoming mainstream?

Re:wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40668475)

Google "PHP A fractal of Bad Design" and tell me that PHP is a good language again.

Re:wow (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40667813)

I'm not kidding too:

If it wasn't for his bitchiness, it would be Windows.
Hold it wait, what happened to the year of Linux desktop, the mobile linux phone, simple RAID, efficient laptop power management? Window 7 really caught and even surpassed in Linux stability and features *(running 32bit and 64bit on one OS?). Instead we have a decent kernel that still locks up on certain advanced features and terrible management usability. That's why mission critical and IBM end up pseudo-forking Linux everytime for each customer--great for the services business but in the end a mess to maintain. In the end, Windows 7+ is more like Linux than you think.

What's that, writing a driver are you? If it isn't fully descriptive in code, you're fired!
One answer: Linux graphics drivers. (Well, a couple more: wireless laptop and sound card drivers)... They're all crap, end the proprietary ones, period.

Goto
Reason why MS can fix zero day patches and Linux takes a week. Even if Linux devs tests more vigorously. There's a reason for code maintainability+readability vs. performance. Want performance: go embedded. Duh.

Linux is becoming PHP. Supporting ARM CPUs will put that nail in the coffin. Having done recent ARM-Linux development, all I can say is Linux devs: welcome to the world of Microsoft, Apple, Palm, ATMEL/Arduino and ARM. Now get your d*mn graphics drivers upto modern standards.

Linus has done a good job, but needs to decide if the kernel says simple and generic or bloated. It's getting bloated from competition: Apple and MS clearly have gone on the attack to keep Linux in the "niche users" group and the devs response is "keep up on features". I prefer the former and he should just stop adding more stuff as it's been since 2.8--that will make him less irritated as a benefit.

Re:wow (0)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#40666699)

Linus always was bitchy, see that's part of the fun of being Linus. (Don't try this at home, kids.)

These days his tantrums are far more widely reported but they are certainly nothing new.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666727)

Hey, he wanted the monolithic kernel.

Re:wow (3, Insightful)

Short Circuit (52384) | about 2 years ago | (#40667141)

I doubt Linus is getting more bitchy than normal. He's just had more 'popular' exposure and attention of and to his rants than normal. It's easy to guess why: Google+ gives him a lot more exposure and spread. Prior to his posting the rant against the root password requirement on Google+, I don't think I'd seen any of his opinions outside of near-fluff interview pieces or, possibly, LKML emails.

Certainly, people didn't care as much until they saw him lambast OpenSuSE developers. That got their attention and interest, and so folks like Slashdot and NetworkWorld are more likely to cover it. Heck, this kind of story is even out of character for /..

Linus only seems more bitchy because people are looking at him more.

Why is this a story? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666011)

Linus bitches and moans about the size of every release candidate. Better that broken stuff gets fixed now rather than with an ever-lengthenng string of point releases after the fact.

Re:Why is this a story? (4, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | about 2 years ago | (#40666109)

Linus bitches and moans about the size of every release candidate. Better that broken stuff gets fixed now rather than with an ever-lengthenng string of point releases after the fact.

The kernel's always pushed the limits of memory, compilers... Here's a typical example from a little over 20 years ago from usenet

From: torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Help, can't compile 0.95a!
Date: 3 Apr 92 21:27:41 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki

In article wjb@cogsci.cog.jhu.edu
(Bill Bogstad) writes:
>
> I have a 8 Meg system and also am having problems compiling fork.c.
>I would have thought that would have been sufficient....

Ok, the problem isn't memory: it's gcc-1.40. For some strange reason
the older gcc runs out of registers when optimizing some of the files in
the linux source distribution, and dies. This one isn't the same bug as
the "unknown insn" which was due to my hacks in the earlier 1.40 - this
one seems to be a genuine gcc bug.

Linux 0.95a is compileable with the older gcc if you just add the flag
"-fcombine-regs" to the command line. In fact, the only thing you need
to do is to remove a "#" from the makefiles: the line

#GCC_OPT = -fcombine-regs

should be uncommented, and gcc-1.40 will have no problems compiling the
source. This was documented in some of the release-notes for 0.95, but
I guess I forgot it for 0.95a.

Why remove the flag in the first place I hear you say? Simply because
gcc-2 doesn't understand -fcombine-regs, as it seems to do the
optimizations even without asking. There are other things I had to
change in the source to get gcc-2 to compile it, but this is the only
problem that made the old gcc choke.

With the advent of an official gcc-2.1 (this weekend?), people might
want to change to that one: note however that gcc-2.1 is about twice as
big as 1.40, so it's going to be slower on machines that swap... People
with just 2M of mem might not want to upgrade (*). I like the changes
to 2.1: the code quality seems to be a lot better (esp floating point).

On a slightly related note: the as-binary in newgcc has been reported by
several people to have problems. Getting as from the original
gcc-distribution by me (gccbin.tar.Z) might be a good idea if you have
problems with the newgcc version.

                Linus

(*) Even with only 2M of mem, using gcc-2 has it's good points. The
shared libraries should cut down on memory use as well as loading time
and disk-space use. Shared libraries work even with 1.40 if you know how
to build them, but 2.1 does it all automatically...

Re:Why is this a story? (-1, Troll)

busyqth (2566075) | about 2 years ago | (#40666611)

> I have a 8 Meg system and also am having problems compiling fork.c.
>I would have thought that would have been sufficient....

No wonder this guy is having a problem.
He's an idiot! You can't even RUN Linux with 8 Megs much less compile it!

Re:Why is this a story? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666781)

Hey fuckface, if you would have read the message header, you would have known that it was posted in 1992.

Re:Why is this a story? (1)

iONiUM (530420) | about 2 years ago | (#40666827)

I can't even tell which one of you is being sarcastic at this point. Maybe it's both.

Re:Why is this a story? (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 2 years ago | (#40667091)

Read busy's other posts, he's a smart ass. It was even a little bit funny. I wouldn't have modded him down for it.

Re:Why is this a story? (4, Informative)

JimCanuck (2474366) | about 2 years ago | (#40666853)


Are you sure you belong on /. ?

There are floppy disk Linux distributions. There has been for quite some time. Last I checked a floppy disk is only 1.44MB.

Let alone in 1992, a 8MB RAM system was on the higher end of a typical desktop.

Re:Why is this a story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40667181)

My first Linux distro was on a stack of floppy disks. It would run the OS, X11, a web browser and a web server in 4MB.

Badly, and it became much faster when I installed another 4MB, but it ran and let me develop my web site on my laptop before uploading to the real server.

Re:Why is this a story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40668611)

8 MB was extremely high end in 1992. I remember getting a Pentium in 1995. 8MB was high end then. You didn't see many 16 MB machines until late 1995.

Re:Why is this a story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666967)

Actually embedded linux begs to differ...don't get me wrong, probably requires 2.4 and sucks, but it will run

Re:Why is this a story? (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#40667313)

You seem to think a compiler inherently requires at least as much memory as the binary it is compiling will end up using.
Why?

Hold on a second. (4, Insightful)

Millennium (2451) | about 2 years ago | (#40666015)

If I'm reading the article correctly, this isn't so much about file size as about the number of bugs fixed. Or rather, how many bugs still needed fixing in what was supposed to be the seventh release candidate of the kernel: something one would not expect to find so many bugs in very quickly.

Is this the case?

Re:Hold on a second. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666055)

Who knows? We would have to read the fine announcement and that is just too much work.

Re:Hold on a second. (1)

eimsand (903055) | about 2 years ago | (#40666095)

That is not at all how I read the article. My reading is much closer to the summary.

Re:Hold on a second. (4, Informative)

dacut (243842) | about 2 years ago | (#40666247)

In the actual e-mail [lkml.org] , it's about both size and change velocity:

Because I last week I thought that making an -rc7 was not necessarily realy required, except perhaps mainly to check the late printk changes. But then today and yesterday, I got a ton of small pull requests, and now I find myself releasing an -rc7 that is actually bigger than rc6 was.

Re:Hold on a second. (5, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#40666387)

It seems like part of what he's trying to point out here is that there may be developers trying to cram in what are really new features into 3.5 by declaring them bugs and pushing them into RC's, rather than waiting until the next release. This behavior wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Re:Hold on a second. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666427)

And with them being peppered all over the code, it can be hard to get comprehensive tests done. Especially as it is summer on the northern part, and people may want to do something other than sit in a room testing a new RC.

Re:Hold on a second. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666119)

Yes, the idea is every RC should be getting closer to release quality. In general, this means RC7 should have had less changes that RC6.

For all the IT guys who don't actually understand large scale development, on Monday morning you have a list of printers to unjam and you are supposed to give daily status reports. You would expect your lazy ass would make the list of crap left to fix slowly get smaller, but instead your list is growing because you jam every printer when you try to print your daily status report.

Re:Hold on a second. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666311)

Linus is mainly complaining because he wants bugfixes to come in during the merge window. The RC's are then used to iron out bugs that got added by features that were added during the merge window OR to fix existing bugs that were too invasive to fix in a normal 3.x.x update. The idea is that the change from 3.4 to 3.5-rc1 is massive, 3.5rc-1 to 3.5rc2 is smaller, 3.5rc2 to rc3 is even smaller. And it keeps getting smaller until the number of commits is very low, and those commits are very small changes themselves. This SHOULD have been 3.5 release, but instead a ton of large commits were done after rc6 and that makes Linus uncomfortable about labeling 3.5 as Stable until people have a change to test out those new commits. The more commits people do past like rc2, the longer the delay until 3.5 is marked as stable and released, honestly unless im forgetting something, I havent seen a 7th release candidate for any kernel since the change to 3.0, most of them have been capping around 5. By a 7th RC there shouldnt be really anything going on unless an email comes in that is labeled "URGENT KERNEL PANIC FIX" and from the sounds of it...none of these were that, and could have all been saved for the merge window for 3.6. Instead we have the 3.5 kernel delayed by another week.

Re:Hold on a second. (5, Insightful)

Cyrano de Maniac (60961) | about 2 years ago | (#40666867)

The way to achieve what you say Linus wants is for him to reject/postpone changes that fall outside RC criteria. "Sorry, the train has left the station. There's another one due to leave at 3.6." When developers learn that the development phase criteria are enforced they will adjust their behavior to fall in line, but contrapositively they will not adjust their behavior if the criteria are not enforced.

My sympathy is miniscule -- if RC-appropriate changes are what he wants then he should reject/postpone the changes in question as falling outside RC criteria instead of kvetching about them. It's a self-made and self-perpetuated problem; developers will abuse largesse only as long as they are allowed to.

Re:Hold on a second. (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#40667223)

The way to achieve what you say Linus wants is for him to reject/postpone changes that fall outside RC criteria. "Sorry, the train has left the station. There's another one due to leave at 3.6." When developers learn that the development phase criteria are enforced they will adjust their behavior to fall in line, but contrapositively they will not adjust their behavior if the criteria are not enforced.

He does. All the time. And people try bending the rules and stretching the definitions. All the time. You make it sound like Linus only had to tell them once and everybody'd go "well alright then" but it's more like a horny teenager with a girl on the back row of the cinema. No matter how many times those hands are pushed back they'll be back in a slightly different way or after another round of sweet talk. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about or what this "girl" thing is, you can imagine it's like the lobbyists in politics. No matter how many times a bill is defeated they'll keep pushing for new laws that amount to the same. In all three cases they just don't quit until they succeed.

Re:Hold on a second. (1)

camh (32881) | about 2 years ago | (#40668247)

I havent seen a 7th release candidate for any kernel since the change to 3.0

Then you're just not looking. Every release from 3.0 had an rc7 release. That's was the last for each, except 3.1 which made it up to -rc10. In fact, every release since 2.6.20 except 2.6.35 went up to at least -rc7. Have a look at the git tags if you don't believe me.

Re:Hold on a second. (1)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 years ago | (#40666851)

I actually read it as him being upset about getting such large patches all in such a small time-frame. Going through all that does take quite a toll, so I understood that he'd wanted the patches to be strewn over several days. As an aside, "not cool, guys" does not actually sound like bemoaning, let alone being angry.

News for mentally impaired, stuff that splatters. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666031)

Now, admittedly, most of this is pretty small. The loadavg calculation fix patch is pretty big, but quite a lot of that is added comments,' he wrote, referring to the subroutine that measures system workload.

Well, I'm glad you explained that. I'd never have guessed that "the loadavg calculation fix patch" would refer to anything like that.

Kindly find someone stupider than yourself (if that's even possible) to spoonfeed, samzenpus + alphadogg.

WHO HE THINKS HE IS! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666043)

Who the hell this Linus thinks he is by criticizing Linux development??!111?

Negative coding (0, Flamebait)

Ichijo (607641) | about 2 years ago | (#40666087)

Sounds like the kernel could use a good refactoring.

Re:Negative coding (5, Informative)

swillden (191260) | about 2 years ago | (#40666375)

Sounds like the kernel could use a good refactoring.

Because too many people contributed too many patches during a window in the development cycle when not many (or large) patches should be contributed?

Umm... I think you didn't understand what the problem is here. It's a violation of development process protocol that has nothing to do with the quality of the code. Someone trying to submit refactoring patches would have made it much worse, not better. Actually, it wouldn't have been worse, because Linus would just have rejected them at this point in time.

Re:Negative coding (1)

Ichijo (607641) | about 2 years ago | (#40667553)

Because too many people contributed too many patches during a window in the development cycle when not many (or large) patches should be contributed?

In poorly factored code, the scope of a change touches more parts of the code than in well factored code, and that bloats the size of the RC.

Re:Negative coding (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#40666465)

Like every large software project it deserves a rewrite from scratch because it's full of cruft, but nobody will ever find the time to do it.
At least some refactoring and de-crufting is done from time to time if some dev gets pissed off enough. Not something that happens in commercial SW development unless the code is hopelessly broken.

Re:Negative coding (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40667343)

Like every large software project it deserves a rewrite from scratch because it's full of cruft, but nobody will ever find the time to do it.
At least some refactoring and de-crufting is done from time to time if some dev gets pissed off enough. Not something that happens in commercial SW development unless the code is hopelessly broken.

Every time someone says this they should be forced to sit in the corner and and copy this essay by Joel Spolsky on things you should never do [joelonsoftware.com] 5000 times and give a copy to each of their friends together with an essay about what they have learned from this punishment.

Re:Negative coding (5, Funny)

busyqth (2566075) | about 2 years ago | (#40666505)

Sounds like the kernel could use a good refactoring.

Let's recode the whole thing, and this time, we'll do it RIGHT!

Re:Negative coding (4, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | about 2 years ago | (#40667033)

The HURD guys would like a word with you...

Re:Negative coding (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40667843)

They want to ask him to join them?

Re:Negative coding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666609)

No. Sounds like someone needs to learn the term "K.S." aka "Known Shippable" and get on with life.

Re:Negative coding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40667005)

But how will sales drones sell XML integration with the cloud unless the system is refactored with new critical bugs?!?!

Re:Negative coding (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#40666753)

Sounds like the kernel could use a good refactoring.

Indeed. I would suggest separating the ones and zeros into two separate groups so we can keep track of them better.

dude i got hella farts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666153)

my butt is all moist now wtf

Re:dude i got hella farts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666317)

OLOL how u get so funny?

plz teach

Re:dude i got hella farts (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666537)

ain't a damn thing funny bro im dead srs. my ass is swampy and i just spent ten minutes on the shitter. never eating garlic again, fuck that.

Linus Says Something (5, Funny)

mwolfe38 (1286498) | about 2 years ago | (#40666253)

"Not cool guys." - linus OHMYGHOSH, front page news.

Re:Linus Says Something (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666673)

we care about linus, whereas we dont give a fuck about u

u mad?

Re:Linus Says Something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40668359)

http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAINTING

^^ useful reading for Slashdot

Size in source or binary terms? (0)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about 2 years ago | (#40666373)

Are we talking about source code size, or the actual binary footprint on any individual supported system? In other words, does an ARM SoC running Linux get bloated down by the unnecessary PowerPC (!) support code?

Re:Size in source or binary terms? (-1, Troll)

busyqth (2566075) | about 2 years ago | (#40666515)

Are we talking about source code size, or the actual binary footprint on any individual supported system? In other words, does an ARM SoC running Linux get bloated down by the unnecessary PowerPC (!) support code?

And that's not the worst of it: You still have to find room in flash for all the Alpha, Mips, and even VAX (yes, even that!) code. It's kind of a pain, but necessary for backwards compatibility.

Re:Size in source or binary terms? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666633)

From what I understand, the binary footprint is not affected by code targeting another architecture - the compiler simply ignores the parts of code that are marked as for another architecture.

Of course, a developer aiming to support a particular architecture can do bugfixing, feature development or refactoring on code that isn't strictly targeting that architecture (maybe they spot bugs or find a 'better' way to do things while doing the arch-specific work), so development targeting a particular architecture can affect other architectures, but if it's well-done, it'll only be in a positive way.

Re:Size in source or binary terms? (3, Insightful)

jgrahn (181062) | about 2 years ago | (#40666679)

Are we talking about source code size, or the actual binary footprint on any individual supported system?

Neither. He's talking about the size of the diff from the previous release candidate (although it's impossible to tell from TFA).

Re:Size in source or binary terms? (1)

Locutus (9039) | about 2 years ago | (#40668571)

The "Not cool guys." comment sounded like he wasn't thrilled they all dumped lots of fixes all at once. You know, like they were sitting on lots of changes and then, in concert, released everything before a release milestone. I doubt it has anything to do with binary footprints.

LoB

slashverdicrap (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666929)

This networkworld.com article gets submitted to /.:

A host of small modifications and a large number of system-on-a-chip and PowerPC fixes inflated the size of release candidate No. 7 for Version 3.5 of the Linux [networkworld.com] kernel, according to curator Linus Torvalds' RC7 announcement, made on Saturday.

LAST TIME AROUND: Linux kernel 3.4 released [networkworld.com]

Torvalds wasn't happy with the extensive changes, most of which he said he received Friday and Saturday, saying "not cool, guys" in the announcement. However, the occasionally combustible kernel curator [networkworld.com] didn't appear to view this as a major setback.

"Now, admittedly, most of this is pretty small. The loadavg calculation fix patch is pretty big, but quite a lot of that is added comments," he wrote, referring to the subroutine that measures system workload.

However, he noted, there were also the assorted changes for SoCs, PowerPC compatibility, USB and audio to be folded in, forcing a comparatively large RC7.

"Ok, so it's still not *huge*, but it's bigger than -rc6 was. I had hoped for less," wrote Torvalds.

He also hopes that it won't be necessary to deploy an eighth release candidate before Version 3.5 of the kernel can be properly rolled out, and urged the community to "go forth and test."

Among the biggest new features expected in Linux 3.5 is enhanced compatibility with the ARM processor family, which are used in a wide array of low-cost computing devices. Several ARM-related fixes are part of 3.5-RC7, according to the official announcement email and changelog.

The H-Online reported earlier today [h-online.com] that the final version of Linux 3.5 should be deployed next weekend, if all goes well with RC7.

The h-online.com article the networkworld one is a rehashing of:

Over the weekend, Linus Torvalds reluctantly published a seventh release candidate [kernel.org] (RC7) for the 3.5 Linux kernel. In the LKML announcement email [lkml.org] , the Linux creator says that he originally thought another RC would not necessarily be required; however, a large number of small pull requests submitted by developers late last week necessitated an additional RC for testing, leading Torvalds to tell the developers, "Not cool, guys. Not cool."

These changes include media fixes, random SOC fixes and PowerPC fixes, as well as patches [kernel.org] for the leap second bug [slashdot.org] that caused Linux systems to freeze because of permanent high CPU loads that resulted in increased power consumption and wasted electricity [slashdot.org] . "Ok, so it's still not *huge*, but it's bigger than -rc6 was," said Torvalds, adding, "I had hoped for less."

Linus has asked the kernel developers to test the rc7 release to "make sure it's all good", and is hoping that he "won't have to do an -rc8". Barring any major problems over the coming week, Linux3.5 will likely be released next weekend. An overview of the changes made in the 3.5 kernel can be found in TheH's Kernel Log mini-series "Coming in 3.5" which examines the various subsystem developments in the upcoming release.

Review each article and notice what is and what is not a link, and where the links lead.

Actual source material (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40666955)

Very disappointed that the geniuses at "Network World" did not include a link to the original article [lkml.org] . For articles like this it's much better to read the source material yourself and come to your own conclusions, without the sensationalism and ad-baiting.

Time to dump PowerPC support? (1)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | about 2 years ago | (#40668185)

Egads, there hasn't been a new Powerpc in ages except for a few game consoles and people stuck with legacy IBM big iron. Any reason to continue bloating the kernel with that stuff? Time marches on. Why inconvenience everyone so that a few dozen PS3 users can run Linux? :)

Re:Time to dump PowerPC support? (1)

Locutus (9039) | about 2 years ago | (#40668581)

the embedded space has used lots of PPC for years. Notice it stated SoC?

LoB

arch/x86/pci/irq.c (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40668321)

I bemoan the state of that, but Christ knows a rewrite isn't coming anytime soon.

Eeeh (0)

Greyfox (87712) | about 2 years ago | (#40668369)

I remember when it was predicted that the kernel going over 10 megabytes would destroy the Internet. All those people downloading all those 10 megabytes! The Internets was going to come crashing down! That was several million 10 megabyteses ago!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...