Guest post by Version 2.6.39 once again took Linus Torvalds and his fellow developers less than 70 days to complete. This is further indication of a slight, though ever more apparent, increase in the kernel’s development speed, as about 80 to 90 days still passed between the release of two versions one or two years ago. With 2.6.39, this also meant that there was a slight decrease in the number of advancements which are worth mentioning in the Kernel Log; however, there are still plenty of changes that will make Linux faster and better.
…really just keeps getting better and better.
Hi,
Some interesting stats:
– 1991 Linux kernel started
– 1996 (5 years later) “Big kernel lock” added as a quick hack to get it working on SMP systems
– 2011 (15 years later) “Big kernel lock” finally removed completely
It would’ve been quicker to rewrite it from scratch in 1996, instead of attempting to retro-fit SMP support on a kernel that wasn’t originally designed for it; especially when you consider that the number of contributors would’ve been far less in the earlier years.
– Brendan
So they did. It’s called Hurd.
In that case its certainly not quicker!
This leaves out what went wrong. Where more and more code end up protected by the BKL even if it really did not require it.
Rewrite from scratch for SMP still could have ended up a huge mess. Core developers today are a lot wiser than the were even 5 years ago.
And the change in wisdom will start showing itself.
Will this mean a stable driver ABI?
I think a stable ABI isn’t favored by some important kernel devs, Greg Kroah-Hartman chief among them
I read the reasoning behind it and every single point they make is actually the case for a Stable ABI.
It is a shame … because my hardware works better on OpenBSD which is a niche Operating system than it does on Linux and I don’t have pretty generic kit.
That should be “do have generic kit”
A stable driver ABI is only required where you have a binary driver without source code.
To accomodate a stable driver ABI would mandate a lack of flexibility to change that ABI.
It is possible to hide anti-user features within a closed binary. It turns out that users don’t want anti-user features. Linux is written by its users.
So, for at least these couple of reasons, a stable driver ABI is the exact opposite of what is wanted.
So what part of “Linux is written by its users, and not by hardware OEMs or by big media wanting to include DRM” did you fail to understand?
This personal anecdote doesn’t change the fact that Linux has working drivers for more hardware than any other OS.
Edited 2011-05-23 01:44 UTC
I keep making this error … it is not known as “anti-user features” but rather “anti-features”. My apologies for getting the wrong term. Again.
A very good example of an anti-feature is the restrictions on skipping adverts and trailers in DVD players.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damaged_good#Anti-features
“Whether a feature is an “anti-feature” often depends on the point of view of the observer: for example, the restrictions on skipping adverts and trailers in DVD players are anti-features from the consumer’s viewpoint, but useful features from the viewpoint of the movie studio making the DVD which contains the codes that specify the restrictions”.
Spot on. Anyway, since Linux is written by its users, it is written from the point of view that beimg unable to skip adverts and trailers when playing DVDs, or being unable to play a DVD bought in another country … these kinds of features are bad.
Astute people will also notice that putting this kind of anti-feature into software requires that the software is closed source, and that the end user of such software is therefore unable to remove the anti-feature.
It is also useful to point out that there are vastly many more people who would NOT want this kind of anti-feature included in widely-used desktop software compared to the numbers of those who would want it included. Anyone who would argue … want to put this to a vote?
Hence having a stable driver ABI is, indirectly, a bad thing, because a stable driver ABI allows for binary-only closed source drivers, and binary-only closed source drivers, in turn, allow anti-features.
A closed source binary-only driver is a “damaged good”.
Edited 2011-05-23 07:12 UTC
Oh not this crap.
You can go on all day about “anti-features” … when my wireless/video/audio/<insert hardware> breaks after a kernel update … I consider that to be an anti-feature.
Do you just parrot the crap that Stallman and Co come out with?
I have yet to hear a compelling technical argument as to why a Stable ABI is bad, most of the arguments are idealogical, which I care little for and don’t link me that newsgroup post from the Kernel developer … I’ve read it and it is complete crap.
Stable ABI means that the drivers are guaranteed to work even after kernel changes.
Edited 2011-05-23 13:52 UTC
The whole point of not having a stable ABI is to get companies to release FOSS drivers for their hardware. Nothing more, nothing less.
If drivers didn’t break every kernel change, or Xorg change, people wouldn’t complain, and hardware companies wouldn’t feel pressured to release FOSS drivers. It’s a pretty good system really.
The whole point of an interface is that it does not change and the implementation below it changes … this is standard software engineering practice.
Linux is not written by it’s users, it is written by large corporations such IBM, Oracle, Redhat and Novell for their own personal needs
It is a common complaint that wireless drivers and video frequently break, this hasn’t changed in almost 10 years (since I first used Linux).
Back to my previous point, much of the GNU/Linux development is done by large corporations, which develop it for their uses, not for the good of you or me … this is why Desktop Linux has sucked for at least the last 10 years.
This idealogical argument becomes pretty moot, when there is no basement army of hackers improving the operating system, it is done by large corps for their benefit.
My point of it was obvious … it is pathetic that an Operating system that has less than a 0.01% desktop install base support my hardware than is orders of magnitude far more popular OS and has far more developers.
Dismissing it as far as I am concerned means you can’t concoct an explanation.
It is a common complaint that drivers frequently break on Linux, However it they don’t frequently break on OpenBSD, Windows and Solaris, I know the latter two have a stable abi and I expect OpenBSD is the same.
Is it? I only know of ATI’s binary drivers, which are unavailable on OpenBSD and Solaris. Besides, they usually break due to changes in X.org, not the kernel, so if they were available for OpenBSD, they would break just as often.
Also, it would be nice if you checked whether OpenBSD really does have a stable kernel ABI, as discussing things based on guesswork and anecdote is a bit silly.
I have the most generic intel chipset on this computer … Linux doesn’t work, OpenBSD does … I honestly don’t care whether it is Xorg, Linux or Space aliens … I just want my damn video to work. I need a cheap unix system for deving on and I can’t afford a mac (which if I could I would use that).
OpenBSD unlike Linux is an OS and not a kernel … so Anything supported by version say 4.5 … is going to guaranteed to work until you hit 4.6 as long as you follow stable and they release of working hardware with each release … so you know what will work and what is not supported.
Same with Windows a driver will work from Windows XP RTM to Windows XP SP3 (I suspect there are the odd exceptions), A driver that will work with VISTA RTM will work with VISTA SP2 … and so on.
OK, so you have no fucking clue whatsoever why your computer doesn’t work, but you choose to blame the ABI. Fine.
You should have left it at stating your computer doesn’t work and you have no fucking clue as to why.
Sorry I forgot to add it was working fine at one point on Linux, at some point someone created regression in the code … since both OpenBSD and Linux both use Xorg … it must be Linux kernel.
Kernel Updates break my wireless. Because my wireless driver isn’t in the main kernel tree (the hardware specs are fully available), if there was a Stable ABI the driver would continue to work.
I have a nvidia graphics card in another machine, again kernel updates break my video, if there was a stable ABI my driver would continue to work after an kernel upgrade.
What don’t you get? Any advantage in having a stable ABI goes entirely to OEMs/developers outside of the kernel who want to keep their code as a secret unto themselves. There is no advantage to having a stable ABI that goes to the advantage of Linux users and Linux developers.
So, if you upgrade your kernel and you encounter a regression, so that a piece of your hardware no longer works, there are some things to do:
(1) revert your kernel back to the previous version that worked, and pin it
(2) lodge a bug report, and
(3) wait for the bug report to be fixed before you un-pin the kernel.
You can do only step 1 above if you please.
Edited 2011-05-24 03:16 UTC
Load of Crap.
I always addressed that in a previous post, which you conveniently ignored. Most of the work that goes into the kernel is done by Oracle, IBM, Redhat and other large corps, They don’t care about the Desktop Linux users or your freedoms or the GPL … so your point becomes moot.
Anyway there our desktop linux users that suffer from not having a Stable Driver ABI everyday … how is this benefitting them? …
… It doesn’t, the only people that benefit are the large corps that are using Linux as a platform for their database and big iron solutions.
And back to my main point, there is no compelling technical reason to not have a stable kernel ABI, they are all ideological .. which I have already said I don’t care about, many people just want to use an OS that works on their desktop and without a stable ABI, many people will defer back to Windows or even more proprietry OSes such as MacOSX.
No, you’ve completely failed to address that in any comment. You’re full of shit, and you comparison to OpenBSD is one between in-kernel driver support and third party drivers. OpenBSD actively does not support third party drivers.
What you’ve found is a piece of hardware that’s better supported in OpenBSD than in Linux, and then you pulled a reason for this from your arse.
Really? Am I full of shit.
Lets forget the OpenBSD thing then, I give you that.
You didn’t address any of the points I made in the comment you replied to.
Load of Crap.
I addressed this in a previous post, which you conveniently ignored. Oracle, IBM, Redhat and other large corps are users of Linux just as much as individuals are. They get no money from the big media companies or the like to stiff users and include DRM, and they are not able to include anti-features into the kernel tree because this is the organisation that decides what does and does not go into the Linux kernel:
http://www.kernel.org/
Linus Torvalds is the owner of the trademark “Linux” … not IBM, not Oracle, not Red Hat or anyone else. Linus Torvalds gets to decide what does, and does not, go into the kernel tree. If IBM, or Oracle, or Red Hat, or any other large corps wanted to include an anti-feature into the kernel, they would have to fork it, and even then they wouldn’t be able to call it Linux (because they don’t own the trademark).
Didin’t you know all this? Are you slow or something?
Please explain how eaxctly does the lack of a stable ABI in the Linux kernel (TM Linus Torvalds) benefit the large corps?
Please explain a single, solitary anti-feature that has been included in the Linux kernel (TM Linus Torvalds) at the behest of the large corps?
Hmmmmmm?
This will be interesting.
I addressed this in a previous post, which you conveniently ignored. I have already told you the technical reasons why it is NOT a good idea to have a stable kernel ABI. I will state them again, since it obviously went woooooosh way, way, way over your head.
(1) Having a stable kernel ABI means that when a bug is discovered, it has to remain in place. Although drivers can be written to avoid that bug, the bug is still there, and so deliberately malicious code can be written to exploit it. They only way around this is to change the ABI.
(2) Having an upgradeable ABI means eventually that the ABI security, efficiency and performance will improve over time. Bugs can be eliminated, and legacy mechanisms can be deprecated and eventually dropped.
(3) Having an upgradeable ABI means that transitions (such as the move from 32-bit to 64-bit) are largely painless.
The only penalty for having these benefits of an upgradeable ABI is that kernel-facing code (i.e. primarily drivers) must be re-compiled. This is a non-issue if you have the source code. Linux has the source code for more drivers than any other OS.
Sheesh, its not hard to follow.
Edited 2011-05-24 09:49 UTC
I can follow mate.
Can you stop using this “anti-feature” phrase … it is FUD from the FSF. Surely if Oracle wants to add a feature of dubious value … as a “Linux user” that is their right as you keep on pointing out.
The 3 benefits are technically dubious.
All an interface does is describe a set of methods to which you interact with the code beneath it. If the interface does not to this correct … then the interface has been poorly designed. Maybe more thought should have been put into it in the first place?
I also don’t think hardware manufacturers should have to play the game of “keep up with the kernel ABI or give us your code”.
This ultimately makes any Linux system unusable for me … since it causes me extra effort to use it. For reasons that I simply don’t care about.
On Windows I can run the same drivers for years (literally) and I don’t have to do anything to keep my hardware running as updates to the Windows and its Kernel are released.
For me this is the obvious benefit … all the other crap you spout is of no importance to me as a Desktop user and many others like me.
You can argue the toss about this all you want … but I think an “Anti-Feature” is the computer causing me more work than it needs to.
Are you slow or something?
Actually, no, Oracle cannot add an anti-feature to Linux.
Oracle could add an anti-feature to the Linux codebase, and then distribute that product under the GPL, but they could not call it “Linux”. They would have to call it something else entirely.
Users who continued to get and install “Linux (TM)” would not get the anti-feature.
Do you finally understand yet? Linux (TM) is written by its users, for its users. This is why it does not have anti-features.
If you can understand the concepts of “sarcasm” and “parody”, this site might illustrate the point for you:
http://www.linuxgenuineadvantage.org/
“Linux Genuine Advantageâ„¢ is an exciting and mandatory new way for you to place your computer under the remote control of an untrusted third party!”
Pretty funny, really.
This is an utterly unspported claim by you. I posted many examples to show you that anti-features do exist … I can back up what I say. You OTOH, obviously, cannot.
Bugs crop up everywhere. Closed source software is not immune. Only closed source software, however, has a requirement to try to maintain ABI backwards compatibility, so only closed source operating systems are required to keep bugs in their code even after they have been discovered.
OEMs don’t have to give up any code at all in order to enjoy open source drivers. Open source developers are more than happy, given programming specifications, to write the driver code and keep it maintained.
An example of programming specs:
http://www.x.org/docs/AMD/
Code, which is NOT AMD/ATI code, written by open source developers at Xorg from the programming information within those specification documents:
http://wiki.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature
Most of this driver code is NOT written by the OEM:
http://www.linuxdriverproject.org/foswiki/bin/view
“We are a group of Linux kernel developers (over 400 strong) that develop and maintain Linux kernel drivers. We work with the manufacturers of the specific device to specify, develop, submit to the main kernel, and maintain the kernel drivers. We are willing and able to sign NDAs with companies if they wish to keep their specifications closed, as long as we are able to create a proper GPLv2 Linux kernel driver as an end result.”
You are in a small minority. The vast majority of people would have far less trouble and expense running a system that came with Linux pre-installed.
If you want to run Linux on a system that was not designed for it, you do take some risk. Try running Windows on a PS3 or an ARM smartbook and see how you go.
Pfft. It is not my fault if you don’t know what you are doing.
Since you obviously don’t know what you are doing, if you want to run Linux, just run it on a system that was designed to run Linux.
http://zareason.com/shop/home.php?cat=
http://www.system76.com/
If you don’t like either of those, then almost any all-Intel machine would do.
This is what you do with Windows, after all … you buy it pre-installed on a machine that was designed to run Windows.
Do the same courtesy for Linux and you will have a far, far better experience with that hardware than you could possibly get out of a Windows box.
Edited 2011-05-24 12:37 UTC
Why not as a “Linux user” surely that is their right as you keep pointing out.
Stop with this “anti-features” crap. If there is a requirement for it … just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean that feature isn’t valid. Stop with this Anti feature crap.
What Linux is … is whether Linus and Co accept it ..
It is technically dubious because that is not what an interface is supposed to do.
Didn’t claim that.
Not true. The bugs in the code are usually beneath the interface … you do know what an interface in software engineering is don’t you? … if the interface it at fault it can be depreciated and changed and a compatibility layer put on top. The interface is supposed to work like a blackbox … this is like 2nd year University level software engineering.
I agree as a OpenBSD user that this is best … however ATI GPUs are still missing some power saving features that the closed sourced drivers have had for a while now, if a closed source driver didn’t exist users wouldn’t be able to enjoy long battery lives on their AMD GPUs in their notebooks.
Got anything to back this up??
I have intel chipset and hardware, which has open source drivers provided to the Linux kernel by intel. I checked all this to ensure I had maximum compatibility when I sourced the components. That is why OpenBSD is fine … but Linux seems to be broken.
I do know what I am doing, I ran Redhat for several years and used to Admin Linuxs servers for a living.
… but recompiling a kernel driver or running extra commands is a lot of hassle. I don’t like having to do it when I am not get paid to do it … Heck I don’t even like having to download drivers from the net for Windows (something which I don’t have to do much in Windows 7 since they are downloaded via Windows update).
No I didn’t buy it preinstalled … I built my own machine and bought a copy and installed the OS myself.
You do not always buy Windows preinstalled on a machine, it just the norm … Stop telling lies … The Hardware is not designed to run around Windows .. it is just the drivers bloody well work right in the first place.
As I previous said I did check that there was well tested drivers for my intel chipset, but it still breaks. I took the extra time to check that everything will work.
As for the best experience, it is subjective … I find Windows 7 to be superior in almost every aspect of Linux, UI is better, better stability, better updates, better programs.
I used to fuck about a lot with Linux back in Uni, when I had plenty of time to deal with all the breakages … now I have a full time job, I don’t have the patience for it.
Yes, Oracle can add anti-features to a Linux kernel all they want, but they cannot then call the resulting code “Linux”. Oracle must call it something else. Perhaps they could call it “Cyborg” … after all they can’t call it “Android” because another company already did that. Perhpas, if they added enough anti-features to it, Oracle could call it just “Borg”. That would be popular, I’m sure.
Whatever … the point is that because of trademark law Oracle can’t call it Linux. The further point is that if someone gets Linux TM, they won’t get Cyborg, Android or Borg, and so they won’t get any of Oracle’s anti-features.
Do you finally understand this very, very simple point yet? Sheesh!
I don’t run the anti-feature crap … you do. Sheesh!
What reason would I possibly have for wanting to run anti-feature crap? Why should I stop pointing out that you run anti-feature crap, just because you don’t want me to mention it?
If everything did exactly what it was supposed to do, there would never be bugs at all.
There are bugs, deal with it.
Sigh! It is entirely possible to have a problem intrinsic to the actual black-box-interface itself. Changing underlying code, at either side of the interface, won’t remove the problem if it is intrinsic to the interface design. The only thing you can do is deprecate the interface and replace it with a bug-free version … which is to say, you have to abandon the ABI, because the ABI design itself is borked. ABI design errors arise all the time, even in proprieatry designs, deal with it. Only proprieatry designs, however, leave these design bugs in place in the name of stable ABIs.
Edited 2011-05-24 23:28 UTC
Enough of the Star Trek references …
They aren’t anti-features to Oracle … which according to you are a “Linux user” … so why can’t they have them implemented if Linux? Apparently using your own argument … Linux is developed by its users for its users … why can’t Oracle implement that if they are an user?
You can’t have it both ways.
The fact is that it is Linus’s show .. good for him … I like Linus, seems like someone I would like to drink a beer with.
Because Anti Features is some f–king FUD bullshit made up by FSF.org and it members. Whether software is good depends on whether it fulfils it requirements
e.g. if Oracle make it a requirement of their software, that you give over sample of your DNA while performing a headstand first before it activated that is their requirements for their software … it upto you whether you choose to use it or not.
However I doubt many people would use the software if it had such an activation process.
As for I using “anti-features”, I carefully choose the software I use so I don’t fall into this trap … I don’t need Linus and the Guardians of the GPL to defend me.
Funnily enough I don’t have DRM problems, Spyware problems and my Windows 7 install works flawlessly. I accept the terms of use of the software I use if I believe them to be fair.
I don’t run software on my machine that doesn’t benefit me … so I don’t run these so called “anti-features” … I am not stupid enough to install software that doesn’t benefit me, which is what you are implying.
A lot of the software I use doesn’t have to grant me absolute freedoms to use it and modify it … but I don’t want that, all it has to do is do the job I want it to do … i.e. fulfulling my requirements of the software … and I gladly pay for it.
Please stop mixing up idealogy with software engineering basics and consumer requirements.
I don’t deny that there will always be bugs in complicated software but the number of bugs in the final product is substantially decreased if there are proper analysis and design before implementation … if they are changing it that often to “fix” these things then they obviously haven’t spent enough time in this phase.
It is still a design problem which is my point … if there was more time spent on requirement and design before implementation you wouldn’t have to change it so often.
What do I know … I only write software for my living that happens to work … and I don’t consider myself a programming genius by any long shot … I consider myself competent and pragmatic.
The problem with you is that you mix idealogy up with technology.
I only care about technical aspects of the system vs the cost of that. I don’t think I am in some freedom fight.
I suggest you look at yourself and your unwavering religious like devotion to what is essentially 30 or 40 mb of code and a Software license that devalues the worth of software and the hard work of the developer.
TBH, It is utterly ridiculous … you make up Lies about Windows OS to validate your argument and then ignore them … then when someone argues against your other point you ignore that and attack their technical knowledge … All while linking to websites run by fanatics like yourself and are biased towards Linux and the GPL.
Edited 2011-05-25 01:49 UTC
Of corse they can implement it … they simply can’t pretend that it is Linux. Users cannot be fooled into accepting rubbish from Oracle under the guise that it is Linux. This is an exceedingly simple concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark
Why are you struggling with it so much?
What is this supposed to be about? What on earth has this got to do with anything?
No, it isn’t. Anti-features are undesirable features (or lack of desirable features) that are included (or left out) for the sake of the authors of the code and which go directly against the best interests of the users of that code (those who did NOT write it). This is merely a definition, I don’t care what you might like to call it, this is what is meant.
The fact is, a lot of commercial closed-source software has a significant amount of anti-features built in to it. The fact that it is closed-source means that the users (those who are penalised by the anti-features) cannot do anything about removing them.
If you are prepared to put up with the anti-features that are built in to the code you use, that is up to you. The fact that you are prepared to put up with it does not mean that the anti-features are not there, nor does it mean that I must put up with them, nor does it mean that I must not point out to you and everyone else that they exist.
The fact that you don’t mind the anti-features doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. It just means that you are gullible, and easily fooled.
Thankyou for demonstrating my point. You are easily fooled, and you apparently have such a religious devotion to the self-serving products of one company such that you cannot see the plain and obvious deficiencies with their business model, and you cannot stand it when someone points them out to you, to the extent that you attempt launch ad hominem attacks and character assasinations.
Here is a hint: In order to call someone a liar, you need to show that they have lied. This you have not done.
It is not my fault you can’t see the fundamental flaw in your argument. It goes like this …
If Linux is for its User (as you claim), then if it user’s want to implement so called “Anti-features” … why can’t they? If they can’t then it isn’t for the users … it is whether Linus will allow it.
As I said you cannot have it both ways.
I am not easily fooled … I just don’t have the same warped view of the software world as you do.
Basically your view of software works like this …
bool isSoftwareEvil;
If (Software.License != “GPL”){
isSoftwareEvil = true;
}
Trying to argue with you is like trying to play chess with a Pigeon … It craps all over the board, knocks over the pieces and then declares to it friend it has won.
I will continue to produce software that works with my Evil Visual Studio, that lets me get paid.
Oh my, how silly. Apparently you must be even more brainless than youu initially appeared to be.
It is very simple … anyone can write any software they like. Everyone else will accept it ONLY if it is in everyone else’s interests.
Understand?
Not being a large corporation, Linus will only accept stuff under his trademark if it is in everyone’s intersts. Any other behaviour harms Linus’ Linux brand.
Oracle, as a large corporation, might or might not decide that they can collect pots of money by ripping people off … but if they do so, it isn’t in Linus’ own self-interest to ruin his barnd to make Oracle rich. Linus will obviously reject the Oracle rip-people-off contributions, and if they want to continue then Oracle will have to make their own brand.
There is nothing altruistic about all this … it just assumes that everyone acts in their own best interests, and that there is full knowledge because everyone can see the code.
So fill your boots … write all the software you want that isn’t in people’s interests. Even if you try to hide it away as closed-source, people will eventually work it out, and you will have no buyers. Karma.
Edited 2011-05-25 11:22 UTC
No I am not brainless. I simply have a difference in opinion to you … and apparently that makes me brainwashed and stupid.
I flipped the question on its head and you lost your temper or when your argument falls flat on its face .. you pull the “I don’t understand what you are on about” … routine. I had enough of these arguments on here with you to know your behaviour.
No matter how many times I explain my position and the rational behind it … I am wrong … that is why I claim you have a religious devotion to it.
I simply want my hardware to work … I don’t care whether the driver is open or closed … I just want it working … every other OS that has a stable driver ABI, I do not have hardware regression issues … on Linux which doesn’t have one, I do and I am not the only person … all you simply have to do is go on any forum of a popular distro and you will see many new users with the same problem.
I simply think you are deluded and have tunnel vision about Linux, GPL and FSF.org.
I believe you are the one that is brainwashed since you use many of the same terms and arguments as the FSF.org and Stallman himself…
This is why you jump in like “GNU Warrior” when I originally made an off-the-cuff response.
I don’t think you are a liar now … I think you are just deluded.
Pfft.
http://linuxlibrary.org/index.php/distributions/kubuntu-11-04-revie…
“There is now an upgraded power management interface.”
“Plasma netbook or Plasma desktop editions for a workspace that will suit your every need.”
“KDE is quite user friendly and offers a huge selection of tools and help documentation”
Edited 2011-05-25 00:19 UTC
Your rebuttal didn’t rebut the claim about power management in the open-source ATI chipsets, you know that right?
I can’t find any reference where it was bad. What is there to rebut?
You quoted a claim that ATI power-management isn’t as well implemented in the open-source driver, then said “Pff” and posted some links about KDE. Now I don’t know what you were trying to say, sorry.
Actually AMD has contributed about 50% of the commits to the ATI driver recently. So they have a pretty substantial influence over how the driver is implemented, as it should be, they know their hardware best.
But they don’t own the code, and they can’t revoke it and make it closed source, and most importantly they can’t include anti-features in it.
Rubbish, utter rubbish. If there is a fault in the ABI itself, then it is the ABI which needs to change.
Like so:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTQ3NA
Working around such faults in the ABI, just to keep the ABI stable, is exceptionally poor software engineering practice. The fault is still present. On Windows systems, such faults are frequently used to compromise the system.
Also, if one system has a stable ABI (which retains faults over a long period, and which is provided only so that anti-features may be hidden in the code), and another system has an upgradeable ABI (which is made possible becasue the code is open source), then eventually the latter system will overtake the performance of the former, even if the former had a few years head start.
Like so:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_snbsds_com…
Since the only thing that is inconvenienced by changes to the ABI is closed-source binary drivers, and Linux has open source drivers for far, far more hardware than any other OS, in the case of Linux it is far better to break the binary compatibility of the interface than it is to leave such a fault still present in the interface but reatin the ABI compatibility.
Large corporations such IBM, Oracle, Redhat and Novell are indeed amongst the contributors to Linux. Large corporations such IBM, Oracle, Redhat and Novell are also amongst the users of Linux.
Linux is still written by its users.
This has changed, as all major wireless manufacturers now provide open source drivers to the Linux kernel. The last problematic one was Broadcom.
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/09/broadcom-announces-…
Large corporations are indeed amongst the contributors to Linux. Large corporations are also amongst the users of Linux. There is no use case for the large corporations who do contribute to Linux that is opposite to the use case that ordinary individuals use Linux for. The large corporations who do contribute to Linux cannot contribute anti-features, becase said corporations use Linux themselves and also because anti-features won’t be accepted into the mainline kernel tree (because the code is open). Linux is still written by its users.
PS: As provided out of the box, current desktop Linux distributions beat the socks off all other desktops.
Any time you install a new OS, be it a new version of Linx, be it Windows, Solaris or OpenBSD, you run the risk that parts of your system that used to work no longer do so. There was major breakage of hardware with Windows Vista, for example. Because Microsoft doesn’t write the drivers, any hardware that is out of production is out of luck … hardware OEMs aren’t going to update drivers for old models they no longer sell. A huge number of printers, for example, had to be scrapped for lack of drivers after an update of Windows.
If you don’t want Linux to break often, don’t update the OS often. This is exactly the same for Windows.
Edited 2011-05-23 23:41 UTC
You depreciate it and keep it available giving people time to transition … Google Maps still run V2 of the API even though it has been depreciated … this gives people time to move over … imagine if Google broke the API every few months, people would be pissed.
Not this anti-features bollox … it is bullshit double speak. My hardware works better with OS that have a stable driver ABI.
These evil closed source drivers make my hardware work well.
** sigh **, missing the point as per usual.
Took too long … lost me as a user. If there was a Stable driver ABI my wireless would have worked reliably years ago.
So how is improving performance for a clustering performance going to help my dual core laptop computer? It isn’t. Those use-cases do not help me even remotely.
That is a matter of personal opinion.
One major breakage in Windows since Windows 2000 … that is 8 years … as opposed to major breakage everytime I update the OS.
No, it is not the same for Windows … between OS versions yes .. there can be breakage (not very often by the way), however in OS upgrades it is extremely rare.
Also are you seriously telling me to run an unpatched linux system? Are you nuts?
Are you seriously telling me that you would rather run closed binaries which no-one but the authors know how they work or what is in them? Are you nuts?
Are you seriously telling me that you are happy if an OEM provider of a binary blob driver happens to decide to suddenly drop support for perfectly good hardware that you own? You are perfectly happy to buy a new piece of hardware just because that suits an OEM? Are you nuts?
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1372224
“For those of us who were stung last year by ATI’s decision to drop support for <= R500 series cards from their closed source, or proprietary driver (known as the FGLRX driver), we are now forced to use the opensource ATI XORG driver. This is not as bad as it sounds, as in doing so, ATI has released a lot of the hardware specs on these older cards and the opensource driver has improved dramatically in the last year as a result.”
Actually, it is more than just “not bad” … some time ago the open source driver, which still supports R500 and earlier ATI GPUs, surpassed the performance of the last version of the proprietary fglrx driver that supported them.
Unlike Windows, Linux systems are not patched, they are re-compiled. Linux systems do not rely on binary compatibility.
You can install new kernels with only security updates without upsetting binary compatibility. This is what servers do, and even then only when strictly necessary. It is mostly not necessary, and servers achieve up-times in the order of years.
Here is a clue, this is news from 12 May 2011:
http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Ubuntu-Desktop-8-04-LTS-…
Edited 2011-05-24 10:16 UTC
I am not running it as a server … I am running a desktop/laptop.
SERVER != Desktop
I rather all my hardware worked (perfectly and not sort of half arsed) and I kept everything up 2 date.
I am willing to put up with the small chance that I can be comprised with a BLOB than to suffer the inconvenience of not having fully functioning hardware.
If it was a server I would be more worried about security so I wouldn’t run a BLOB.
They are not comparable.
Ubuntu Desktop 8.04 LTS (aka Hardy Heron) is not a server edition, it is a desktop OS.
http://www.h-online.com/security/news/item/Ubuntu-Desktop-8-04-LTS-…
You can still run it today. You can even install some of the latest desktop software on it.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports
For Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy Heron):
http://packages.ubuntu.com/hardy-backports/
You don’t have to update the core of the OS if you do not want to.
Edited 2011-05-24 11:53 UTC
Pffft. There is a vast array of discarded hardware out there which is on the rubbish tip ONLY because the OEM no longer supports it in favour of newer models. Your hardware doesn’t work better on the rubbish tip …
As for anti-features, they are real alright. Here is some light reading for you which just begins to touch upon the subject:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/antifeatures
http://www.oscon.com/oscon2009/public/schedule/detail/8465
http://wiki.mako.cc/Antifeatures
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/foobar/6207
http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2010/01/antifeatures-wiki-catalogues-t…
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/Microsoft-Rebrands-WGA-AntiPiracy…
http://www.reddit.com/comments/61alx/what_is_an_antifeature
The obvious common characteristic of anti-features is that they are found only in closed-source code.
Edited 2011-05-24 10:56 UTC
Hey look at this … I found a table of Windows 7 anti-features published by none other than Microsoft themselves:
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-windows_…
Edited 2011-05-24 11:57 UTC
That’s no longer a large issue anyway, now when we have DKMS and similar systems.
My wireless still breaks after a kernel upgrade … So it is an issue.
Well, are you using DKMS?
For example on my desktop I have nvidia card … wait a sec DKMS doesn’t work with that.
I have a ralink wireless chipset for some unknown reason doesn’t have a Linux driver in the kernel (even though the hardware specs are available on ralink’s website) … OpenBSD supports it fine.
DKMS would never have to be ever invented if they bothered to make ABI stable.
In actual fact, DKMS does work with nvidia, but there is no binary-blob nvidia driver for OpenBSD, so your comparison is a bit shit.
Which RaLink do you use? Most of them are available through whatever distro you’re using.
The fact that the providers of closed-source drivers are in a position to dictate which systems they do and do not provide binary blob drivers for is yet another very good reason to shun binary blob drivers.
Unlike you I know that businesses have budgets.
I don’t expect my niche OS to have a fully support from every hardware vendor because financially it doesn’t make sense.
I am fine with that. If I really want to make sure I can run my Niche OS on a computer I make sure that all the hardware is supported by the people that code the OS.
Not really a problem with binary blob drivers IMO.
What don’t you guys get? … It is a f–king work around for a problem that shouldn’t exist in the first place.
I still have to enable a bloody repository or some extra crap to get my kernel module to update … the point is that I shouldn’t have to in the first place … if the kernel had a stable driver ABI the problem just wouldn’t exist. Since the manufacturer would just code it to the Interface’s specification. The driver I downloaded a year ago and installed would still work perfectly.
No other OS seems to have this problem … and they all have Stable Interfaces for the driver code within the lifetime of the OS.
I know OpenBSD doesn’t have a Nvidia 3d driver … I talking about the fact that I least know what works and what doesn’t work on my niche OS and what does work … works 100%. I was talking about regression of functionality because of bugs introduced by changing something that already works (something I am not allowed to do in the corporate world, without a bloody good reason).
It is irrelevant what my Ralink card is … if the driver had a stable ABI I wouldn’t have to care whether it was in the main kernel tree or not.
Edited 2011-05-24 00:12 UTC
Answer my question, kid, or I’ll just conclude that you’re lying.
You are not my father.
The Windows 98 drivers bundled with my hardware don’t work with Windows XP, that’s unacceptable. The ABI should just have never changed.
Interesting theory.
Of course, it’s impossible to tell if what you claim is actually true, because in the 1996-2011 period a lot happened besides removing BKL.
It would have ended up like KDE4, Linux was in early adoption stage back then. If they added a massive amount of regressions only to be able to evolve faster a few years later, Linux would have died. It was not yet strong enough to survive that.
*I love KDE4, but don’t deny the early problem it had.
Just 8 years longer than what transpired on FreeBSD.
For those who don’t know or remember how the SMP improvements in FreeBSD came about, Greg Lehey’s talk from 2003 is worth reading.
http://www.lemis.com/grog/SMPng/Singapore/slides.pdf
While many of us (myself included) view free vs commercial as a contest, they do benefit from one another.
FreeBSD 5.0 was pretty much the KDE4 of FreeBSD, and I don’t think it came good before 6.0 was out. It just wasn’t very good.
Which they didn’t make a secret of. It was clearly stated that 5.0 was breaking (lots of) new ground and there could be potential chasms.
http://www.freebsd.org/releases/5.0R/early-adopter.html
I would argue that if they had done what you suggest in 1996, Linux would be nothing but a memory now of something that might have been. Seriously – that would have killed all forward progress on the kernel for at least a year or more.
Trying to go straight from a non-preemptive unicore kernel directly to a preemptive one with fine-grained locking would have been a disaster imo. That is something you want to do slowly and carefully. Even with the BKL “hack” Linux scaled well enough on dual processor hardware, which was what most people were running and was enough to get it by for a while (obviously).
Sure, it wasn’t competitive with Solaris and such on big hardware for a long time – but most people didn’t care because they were not running Linux on such hardware… No, it wasn’t ideal – but reality often requires one to compromise their ideals in the name of getting things done. As Linus is fond of saying, “perfect is the enemy of good”.
I’m just happy the people managing the project knew better and didn’t try to bite off more than they could chew…
ps. You left out that they started the process of removing the BKL about 6 or 7 years ago. It wasn’t done overnight, and about 75% of the scalability gains in doing so have been realized for at least 5 years.
Edited 2011-05-22 07:06 UTC
They could have done it with a separate release like FreeBSD did – 4.x for stability, 5.x for new SMP.
That might also have allowed Linux to get the TTY layer rewrite in years earlier (is that even complete as yet?)
and we might still have Alan Cox maintaining it, who’s probably been more important to the improvements in Linux than any single person incl Torvalds himself.
Long time Linux user, just curious about the recent power usage problems, Sandy Bridge problems, and Intel graphics regressions posted on Phoronics recently .
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=16015
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15943
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=15935
New features are great, just wondering how bad regressions are, considering I have a netbook?
Great news, specially on graphics..