* [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon @ 2009-09-21 16:22 ron minnich 2009-09-21 16:44 ` Patrick Kelly ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: ron minnich @ 2009-09-21 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs 2.7M lines last year 10K lines added a day. 5K lines deleted per day. I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next? At the same time, well, as pointed out, we all use it all the time. I'm sending this from gmail. Or you can use Linux by googling these stats :-) ron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-21 16:22 [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon ron minnich @ 2009-09-21 16:44 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-21 17:04 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-21 17:02 ` tlaronde 2009-09-21 17:41 ` Jack Norton 2 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-21 16:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sep 21, 2009, at 12:22 PM, ron minnich wrote: > 2.7M lines last year > 10K lines added a day. > 5K lines deleted per day. At least by what i've seen, a good number of these submits have been fixing the same area, over and over again. How much of this is actually good development anyways (i.e. The "does this really belong here?" comments). > > I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next? Of course it can be sustained, but the question is should it be. > > At the same time, well, as pointed out, we all use it all the time. > I'm sending this from gmail. > > Or you can use Linux by googling these stats :-) Yup, and it works good! Of corse you can also use BSD by doing similar. > > ron > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-21 16:44 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-21 17:04 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-21 17:29 ` Patrick Kelly 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-21 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > At least by what i've seen, a good number of these submits have been > fixing the same area, over and over again. How much of this is > actually good development anyways (i.e. The "does this really belong > here?" comments). [...] > Yup, and it works good! Of corse you can also use BSD by doing similar. in aeronautical circles, it's said that the f4 is proof that given enough thrust even a brick will fly. linux is the f4 of computing? - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-21 17:04 ` erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-21 17:29 ` Patrick Kelly 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-21 17:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:04 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: >> At least by what i've seen, a good number of these submits have been >> fixing the same area, over and over again. How much of this is >> actually good development anyways (i.e. The "does this really belong >> here?" comments). > [...] >> Yup, and it works good! Of corse you can also use BSD by doing >> similar. > > in aeronautical circles, it's said that the f4 is proof that given > enough thrust even a brick will fly. > > linux is the f4 of computing? I'm not sure I understand your question. I was just saying Linux's development is rather chaotic, and in some cases, crack jobs. It still manages to work, and work well, but I'm not really sure for how long. > > - erik > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-21 16:22 [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon ron minnich 2009-09-21 16:44 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-21 17:02 ` tlaronde 2009-09-21 17:20 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-30 13:22 ` Ethan Grammatikidis 2009-09-21 17:41 ` Jack Norton 2 siblings, 2 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: tlaronde @ 2009-09-21 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:22:56AM -0700, ron minnich wrote: > 2.7M lines last year > 10K lines added a day. > 5K lines deleted per day. > > I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next? Are there stats indicating where the lines are added? If this is new hardware (drivers), the accumulation is not a problem---if the API stays stable; if one needs to rework all the drivers because the API does not stabilized... The only time I had to dive in the Linux kernel code, I was disappointed by the "entropy" of the style and ended grep'ing or awk'ing all around to extract a (partial) list of PCI identifiers and drivers. (This was long ago now. 2002 ?) I wonder if a software project will some day be an example of a black hole: collapsing from its own size, the work needed to just make it work being greater than the resources available and the gain to have it work; and the inability to understand the whole (too much, too long) resulting in the impossibility to evolve... -- Thierry Laronde (Alceste) <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com> http://www.kergis.com/ Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-21 17:02 ` tlaronde @ 2009-09-21 17:20 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-30 13:22 ` Ethan Grammatikidis 1 sibling, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-21 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:02 PM, tlaronde@polynum.com wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:22:56AM -0700, ron minnich wrote: >> 2.7M lines last year >> 10K lines added a day. >> 5K lines deleted per day. >> >> I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next? > > Are there stats indicating where the lines are added? If this is new > hardware (drivers), the accumulation is not a problem---if the API > stays > stable; if one needs to rework all the drivers because the API does > not > stabilized... > > The only time I had to dive in the Linux kernel code, I was > disappointed > by the "entropy" of the style and ended grep'ing or awk'ing all around > to extract a (partial) list of PCI identifiers and drivers. (This was > long ago now. 2002 ?) > > I wonder if a software project will some day be an example of a black > hole: collapsing from its own size, the work needed to just make it > work > being greater than the resources available and the gain to have it > work; and the inability to understand the whole (too much, too long) > resulting in the impossibility to evolve... I wouldn't doubt it, it's a monolithic kernel, It's bound to get too large, At one of Googles recent conferences one the the Linux guys said along the lines of, If your codes outside of the kernel, get it in there. So... building everything into the kernel. Where have I heard that was a terrible thing to do... oh yes, everywhere. A software black-hole certainly seems to be possible. I can't help but question, how good a Monolithic kernel is if you can't maintain it any longer. > -- > Thierry Laronde (Alceste) <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com> > http://www.kergis.com/ > Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-21 17:02 ` tlaronde 2009-09-21 17:20 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-30 13:22 ` Ethan Grammatikidis 1 sibling, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Ethan Grammatikidis @ 2009-09-30 13:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:02:02 +0200 tlaronde@polynum.com wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:22:56AM -0700, ron minnich wrote: > > 2.7M lines last year > > 10K lines added a day. > > 5K lines deleted per day. > > > > I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next? > > Are there stats indicating where the lines are added? If this is new > hardware (drivers), the accumulation is not a problem---if the API stays > stable; if one needs to rework all the drivers because the API does not > stabilized... The API has not stabilized. I noticed the API changing twice within a couple of months this year, and on questioning this strange happening (as I saw it) I was told that the driver API hasn't been stable since 2.0.0. What seems to be happening is that the driver API needs to be altered to plug security holes. I think it is also changed to implement ideas of performance enhancement. As to further details I am quite in the dark, and for once in my life happy to remain so. -- Ethan Grammatikidis Those who are slower at parsing information must necessarily be faster at problem-solving. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-21 16:22 [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon ron minnich 2009-09-21 16:44 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-21 17:02 ` tlaronde @ 2009-09-21 17:41 ` Jack Norton 2009-09-21 17:53 ` Patrick Kelly 2 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Jack Norton @ 2009-09-21 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs ron minnich wrote: > 2.7M lines last year > 10K lines added a day. > 5K lines deleted per day. > > I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next? > > At the same time, well, as pointed out, we all use it all the time. > I'm sending this from gmail. > > Or you can use Linux by googling these stats :-) > > ron > > Here is a little related tidbit: http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/ It shows employer/company vs. changed lines/contributions etc... I think this has as much to do with the state of the linux kernel as the overall design and ideal therein. It defines the 'new' open source. I don't think something this large can benifit anymore from open source (as in open 'all the time' to anyone, everywhere -- as opposed to let's say apple's version of open source dev). The development scheme just doesn't scale. In any event, I'm still waiting for the damn thing to fork... -Jack ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-21 17:41 ` Jack Norton @ 2009-09-21 17:53 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-21 19:32 ` David Leimbach 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-21 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Jack Norton wrote: > ron minnich wrote: >> 2.7M lines last year >> 10K lines added a day. >> 5K lines deleted per day. >> >> I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next? >> >> At the same time, well, as pointed out, we all use it all the time. >> I'm sending this from gmail. >> >> Or you can use Linux by googling these stats :-) >> >> ron >> >> > Here is a little related tidbit: > http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/ > It shows employer/company vs. changed lines/contributions etc... > I think this has as much to do with the state of the linux kernel > as the overall design and ideal therein. It defines the 'new' open > source. I don't think something this large can benifit anymore > from open source (as in open 'all the time' to anyone, everywhere -- > as opposed to let's say apple's version of open source dev). The > development scheme just doesn't scale. > In any event, I'm still waiting for the damn thing to fork... Fork... That's true, everything under the sun has forked, except the Linux kernel... > > -Jack ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-21 17:53 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-21 19:32 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-21 19:42 ` Patrick Kelly 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: David Leimbach @ 2009-09-21 19:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1384 bytes --] On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Kelly <kameo76890@gmail.com>wrote: > > On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Jack Norton wrote: > > ron minnich wrote: >> >>> 2.7M lines last year >>> 10K lines added a day. >>> 5K lines deleted per day. >>> >>> I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next? >>> >>> At the same time, well, as pointed out, we all use it all the time. >>> I'm sending this from gmail. >>> >>> Or you can use Linux by googling these stats :-) >>> >>> ron >>> >>> >>> Here is a little related tidbit: >> http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/ >> It shows employer/company vs. changed lines/contributions etc... >> I think this has as much to do with the state of the linux kernel as the >> overall design and ideal therein. It defines the 'new' open source. I >> don't think something this large can benifit anymore from open source (as in >> open 'all the time' to anyone, everywhere -- as opposed to let's say apple's >> version of open source dev). The development scheme just doesn't scale. >> In any event, I'm still waiting for the damn thing to fork... >> > > Fork... That's true, everything under the sun has forked, except the Linux > kernel... > Except for the times when the linux kernel was forked for PPC support :-). Or the fork for running linux on L4. or.... > > >> -Jack >> > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2351 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-21 19:32 ` David Leimbach @ 2009-09-21 19:42 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-22 1:12 ` andrey mirtchovski 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-21 19:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1545 bytes --] On Sep 21, 2009, at 3:32 PM, David Leimbach wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Kelly > <kameo76890@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Jack Norton wrote: > > ron minnich wrote: > 2.7M lines last year > 10K lines added a day. > 5K lines deleted per day. > > I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next? > > At the same time, well, as pointed out, we all use it all the time. > I'm sending this from gmail. > > Or you can use Linux by googling these stats :-) > > ron > > > Here is a little related tidbit: > http://lwn.net/Articles/222773/ > It shows employer/company vs. changed lines/contributions etc... > I think this has as much to do with the state of the linux kernel > as the overall design and ideal therein. It defines the 'new' open > source. I don't think something this large can benifit anymore > from open source (as in open 'all the time' to anyone, everywhere -- > as opposed to let's say apple's version of open source dev). The > development scheme just doesn't scale. > In any event, I'm still waiting for the damn thing to fork... > > Fork... That's true, everything under the sun has forked, except the > Linux kernel... > > Except for the times when the linux kernel was forked for PPC > support :-). > > Or the fork for running linux on L4. > > or.... Last thing I new all of these ports were merged back into the main tree. Although I guess that would still be considered a port. > > > > > > -Jack > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2953 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-21 19:42 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-22 1:12 ` andrey mirtchovski 2009-09-22 1:26 ` Patrick Kelly ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: andrey mirtchovski @ 2009-09-22 1:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs it's on slashdot, it must be true: "During a roundtable discussion at LinuxCon in Portland, Oregon this afternoon, moderator and Novell distinguished engineer James Bottomley asked Tovalds whether Linux kernel features were being released too fast, before the kernel is stabilized. Citing an internal Intel study that tracked kernel releases, Bottomley said Linux performance had dropped about two per centage points at every release, for a cumulative drop of about 12 per cent over the last ten releases. "Is this a problem?" he asked. "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds." well, not really slashdot: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_bloated_huge/ Ron, did you throw anything at Linus while you were there? :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 1:12 ` andrey mirtchovski @ 2009-09-22 1:26 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-22 2:33 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 3:36 ` ron minnich 2009-09-22 14:17 ` J.R. Mauro 2 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-22 1:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:12 PM, andrey mirtchovski wrote: > it's on slashdot, it must be true: > > "During a roundtable discussion at LinuxCon in Portland, Oregon this > afternoon, moderator and Novell distinguished engineer James Bottomley > asked Tovalds whether Linux kernel features were being released too > fast, before the kernel is stabilized. > > Citing an internal Intel study that tracked kernel releases, Bottomley > said Linux performance had dropped about two per centage points at > every release, for a cumulative drop of about 12 per cent over the > last ten releases. "Is this a problem?" he asked. > > "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds." So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make things modular. > > well, not really slashdot: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_bloated_huge/ > > Ron, did you throw anything at Linus while you were there? :) > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 1:26 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-22 2:33 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 2:52 ` andrey mirtchovski ` (4 more replies) 0 siblings, 5 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-22 2:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > > "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds." > > So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make > things modular. rob, presotto, ken and phil did not agree with tanenbaum's ideas about modular kernels. this was a direct response to ast many years ago. it was hard to dig up when i did so in 2006. perhaps someone has a better link: - Microkernels are the way to go False unless your only goal is to get papers published. Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkernel we know and offers more functionality and comparable or often better performance. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 2:33 ` erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-22 2:52 ` andrey mirtchovski 2009-09-22 2:58 ` Patrick Kelly ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: andrey mirtchovski @ 2009-09-22 2:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs uriel keeps a copy of everything: http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/andy_tanenbaum > > this was a direct response to ast many years ago. it was > hard to dig up when i did so in 2006. perhaps someone > has a better link: ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 2:33 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 2:52 ` andrey mirtchovski @ 2009-09-22 2:58 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-22 3:02 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 6:15 ` Tim Newsham ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-22 2:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sep 21, 2009, at 10:33 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: >>> "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said >>> Torvalds." >> >> So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make >> things modular. > > rob, presotto, ken and phil did not agree with tanenbaum's > ideas about modular kernels. > > this was a direct response to ast many years ago. it was > hard to dig up when i did so in 2006. perhaps someone > has a better link: > > - Microkernels are the way to go > False unless your only goal is to get papers published. > Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkernel > we know and offers more functionality and comparable > or often better performance. It was somewhat sarcastic. I'm aware each type of kernel has it's specific areas it excels in. I was poking fun at the Mono v Micro debate. We as people don't always agree on a subject. I can't agree completely with some of the Bell labs staff on some subjects. C or C++ for example, I strongly prefer Ada. Does that mean I don't agree with Plan 9's design? Far from it, almost every machine I've set up either runs Plan 9 or is an embedded system. > > - erik > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 2:58 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-22 3:02 ` erik quanstrom 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-22 3:02 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > We as people don't always agree on a subject. I can't agree completely > with some of the Bell labs staff on some subjects. C or C++ for > example, I strongly prefer Ada. that's cool. i like to do embedded work in object cobol. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 2:33 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 2:52 ` andrey mirtchovski 2009-09-22 2:58 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-22 6:15 ` Tim Newsham 2009-09-22 14:23 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 13:48 ` Eric Van Hensbergen 2009-09-22 14:39 ` David Leimbach 4 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Tim Newsham @ 2009-09-22 6:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs > this was a direct response to ast many years ago. it was > hard to dig up when i did so in 2006. perhaps someone > has a better link: > > - Microkernels are the way to go > False unless your only goal is to get papers published. > Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkernel > we know and offers more functionality and comparable > or often better performance. not intending to pour gas on the flames, but there have been a number of ukernels since that are a fraction of the size of p9 (and less functional, by design). Some with very good performance. > - erik Tim Newsham http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 6:15 ` Tim Newsham @ 2009-09-22 14:23 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 16:57 ` Tim Newsham 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-22 14:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > > - Microkernels are the way to go > > False unless your only goal is to get papers published. > > Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkernel > > we know and offers more functionality and comparable > > or often better performance. > > not intending to pour gas on the flames, but there have been a number of > ukernels since that are a fraction of the size of p9 (and less functional, > by design). Some with very good performance. i'm not sure what "good performance" means. is there enough functionality in current µkernels to even benchmark real work against plan 9? the original problem posed was the "scalability of linux development". how does l4 help with linux' development problems? i tend to think the problem is in goals and mgmt. as a case in point, > And instead of revising the design, I think we're going to see them go > for the 2-percent speedups here and there. from what i've seen, there's a funny math to linux optimizations. a number of 2% µoptimizations lead to global 12% pessimization. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 14:23 ` erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-22 16:57 ` Tim Newsham 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Tim Newsham @ 2009-09-22 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 954 bytes --] >> not intending to pour gas on the flames, but there have been a number of >> ukernels since that are a fraction of the size of p9 (and less functional, >> by design). Some with very good performance. > > i'm not sure what "good performance" means. is there enough > functionality in current µkernels to even benchmark real work > against plan 9? you can microbenchmark the ukernel itself and run macrobenchmarks on operating systems sitting atop the ukernel. btw, there's even been one ukernel recently that has a formal proof of correctness (against its specification and some containment properties). Roughly a 10 man-year effort for about 7.5kloc. Not something you'd likely be able to do yet against something linux- sized. > the original problem posed was the "scalability of linux development". > how does l4 help with linux' development problems? no idea. > - erik Tim Newsham http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 2:33 ` erik quanstrom ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2009-09-22 6:15 ` Tim Newsham @ 2009-09-22 13:48 ` Eric Van Hensbergen 2009-09-22 14:44 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 14:39 ` David Leimbach 4 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Eric Van Hensbergen @ 2009-09-22 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:33 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: >>> "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said >>> Torvalds." >> >> So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make >> things modular. > > rob, presotto, ken and phil did not agree with tanenbaum's > ideas about modular kernels. > > this was a direct response to ast many years ago. it was > hard to dig up when i did so in 2006. perhaps someone > has a better link: > > - Microkernels are the way to go > False unless your only goal is to get papers published. > Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkernel > we know and offers more functionality and comparable > or often better performance. > IMHO, that statement applies to existing microkernel implementations (at the time? perhaps still?) -- its not clear to me that they inherently must be that way. Likely their use as "fuel for papers and PhD's" contributed to their bloat. -eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 13:48 ` Eric Van Hensbergen @ 2009-09-22 14:44 ` David Leimbach 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: David Leimbach @ 2009-09-22 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1492 bytes --] On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>wrote: > On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:33 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds." >>>> >>> >>> So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make >>> things modular. >>> >> >> rob, presotto, ken and phil did not agree with tanenbaum's >> ideas about modular kernels. >> >> this was a direct response to ast many years ago. it was >> hard to dig up when i did so in 2006. perhaps someone >> has a better link: >> >> - Microkernels are the way to go >> False unless your only goal is to get papers published. >> Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkernel >> we know and offers more functionality and comparable >> or often better performance. >> >> > IMHO, that statement applies to existing microkernel implementations (at > the time? perhaps still?) -- its not clear to me that they inherently must > be that way. > Likely their use as "fuel for papers and PhD's" contributed to their bloat. > > -eric > > > At that time, and even today, microkernels are "academically bloated". However some of the more practical academics (yeah I know it's like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence) have spun very interesting things off like OKL4, which is running in several cellular telephones, and on Qualcomm equipment, possibly with a Linux personality ported to it. [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2292 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 2:33 ` erik quanstrom ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 2009-09-22 13:48 ` Eric Van Hensbergen @ 2009-09-22 14:39 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 14:47 ` erik quanstrom 4 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: David Leimbach @ 2009-09-22 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1957 bytes --] On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:33 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>wrote: > > > "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds." > > > > So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make > > things modular. > > rob, presotto, ken and phil did not agree with tanenbaum's > ideas about modular kernels. > > this was a direct response to ast many years ago. it was > hard to dig up when i did so in 2006. perhaps someone > has a better link: > > - Microkernels are the way to go > False unless your only goal is to get papers published. > Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkernel > we know and offers more functionality and comparable > or often better performance. > > This does not mean they were saying microkernels can't be done well :-). At least I hope not, because there's a few counterexamples out there. L4 based systems are quite impressive, though their idea of a microkernel is a bit more like an advanced hypervisor, but more for something along the lines of paravirtualization. QNX is another good example of a microkernel that works quite well in practice. If by microkernel you mean Mach, and hopefully no one does anymore, then you're pretty much dead on ;-). Even the latest versions of Minix really aren't too shabby and still microkernel based. (small memory footprint, decent functionality, lots of Unix stuff work on it, and they have an interesting choice of compilers.) Are these systems more complex to reason about though? Probably :-). But when you've only got 7 system calls (per the original L4 specifications I've read over) you don't really have a lot to debug. Just gotta make sure you chose the correct primitives to compose all the software you need to write on the system. I think, in that sense, Plan 9 and some microkernels are pretty similar. Dave > - erik > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2674 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 14:39 ` David Leimbach @ 2009-09-22 14:47 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 15:04 ` David Leimbach 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-22 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > Are these systems more complex to reason about though? Probably :-). But > when you've only got 7 system calls (per the original L4 specifications I've > read over) you don't really have a lot to debug. Just gotta make sure you > chose the correct primitives to compose all the software you need to write > on the system. that functionality doesn't disappear, does it? where ever it goes, the bugs will follow. if the argument is that it's easier to debug if it's not in the kernel, i think that argument requires some proof. > However some of the more practical academics (yeah I know it's like jumbo > shrimp or military intelligence) have spun very interesting things off like we used to call these people research fellows at corporate labs. sadly, their astroid has landed. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 14:47 ` erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-22 15:04 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 15:14 ` erik quanstrom 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: David Leimbach @ 2009-09-22 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3393 bytes --] On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:47 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>wrote: > > Are these systems more complex to reason about though? Probably :-). > But > > when you've only got 7 system calls (per the original L4 specifications > I've > > read over) you don't really have a lot to debug. Just gotta make sure > you > > chose the correct primitives to compose all the software you need to > write > > on the system. > > that functionality doesn't disappear, does it? where ever it goes, > the bugs will follow. > That's absolutely correct. However, if you can test a piece in isolation from other noise, you can rule out certain areas as being suspect in the process of diagnosing issues. > > if the argument is that it's easier to debug if it's not in the kernel, > i think that argument requires some proof. > > The argument is that if something is logically separable from a larger system, and independently testable, then once you've verified it is correct, and that the "glue" is correct that is used to compose a larger system, that you can more readily decide where to look for problem sources. This is actually the basis of pure functional programming. Pure functions can not deviate in the values they produce because they have a property called referential transparency. Not all code can be written this way obviously, but if you can build a small system, test that it works, then compose with another small system to do more processing, you can "glue" those things together to build something more complex. Think Unix/Plan 9 pipelines of small commands and you get the point. I believe this concept took a little mind-bending to get to as well, but seems almost obvious now. You can think of sort, uniq, and grep as pure functional routines, which you run some I/O through. If the inputs are the same, the outputs (damn well better) be the same. Back in the "old days" (20 years ago?) Microkernels were going to make it so that all software was organized this way. It's just not practical to do so though. They wanted servers for disk access, servers for network etc. Basically it looked like what GNU Hurd was after... and we see how well that's done. You'll find systems based on the L4 microkernels today that implement a single address space (like Inferno I suppose? or Singularity) and you'll find stuff like L4-Linux, mostly being used as a way to bridge other OSes to Linux's drivers, or just to run multiple instances of Linux as in a virtualization like system like VMWare's high end products provide (they're basically using a microkernel too for their high-end hypervisors). > > However some of the more practical academics (yeah I know it's like jumbo > > shrimp or military intelligence) have spun very interesting things off > like > > we used to call these people research fellows at corporate > labs. sadly, their astroid has landed. > Yeah :-(. It's a sad time. Microsoft, for as much as they've been bashed, is keeping that dream alive for some. They seem to understand that R&D is actually important to keeping on top of things. I feel a little "icky" to admit it but I really like Visual Studio and F#. I was amazed at how quickly I was able to learn C# and write GUI programs compared to say, Xcode and Cocoa. Dave > > - erik > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4527 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 15:04 ` David Leimbach @ 2009-09-22 15:14 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 16:26 ` David Leimbach 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-22 15:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On Tue Sep 22 11:06:37 EDT 2009, leimy2k@gmail.com wrote: > The argument is that if something is logically separable from a larger > system, and independently testable, then once you've verified it is correct, > and that the "glue" is correct that is used to compose a larger system, that > you can more readily decide where to look for problem sources. > > This is actually the basis of pure functional programming. i thought that was called "unit testing", and i don't think unit testing is the exclusive domain of functional programming or microkernels. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 15:14 ` erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-22 16:26 ` David Leimbach 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: David Leimbach @ 2009-09-22 16:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1085 bytes --] On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:14 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>wrote: > On Tue Sep 22 11:06:37 EDT 2009, leimy2k@gmail.com wrote: > > The argument is that if something is logically separable from a larger > > system, and independently testable, then once you've verified it is > correct, > > and that the "glue" is correct that is used to compose a larger system, > that > > you can more readily decide where to look for problem sources. > > > > This is actually the basis of pure functional programming. > > i thought that was called "unit testing", and i don't think > unit testing is the exclusive domain of functional programming > or microkernels. > > I never claimed exclusivity. I simply said "we've seen this before" and why it's good, in response to you're "this remains to be proven that isolation is a good thing". I gave examples. I don't understand why we're arguing and in agreement at the same time. I guess it's fun, but I've got better things to do right now that I've got to get back to :-) Peace! Dave > - erik > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1771 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 1:12 ` andrey mirtchovski 2009-09-22 1:26 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-22 3:36 ` ron minnich 2009-09-22 3:38 ` ron minnich 2009-09-22 14:17 ` J.R. Mauro 2 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: ron minnich @ 2009-09-22 3:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs I skipped the panel. Those things are never interesting. I was working outside and heard lots of laughter however. ron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 3:36 ` ron minnich @ 2009-09-22 3:38 ` ron minnich 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: ron minnich @ 2009-09-22 3:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs Having just read the register article, I'm now doubly glad I wasn't there I was working on Plan 9 :-) ron ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 1:12 ` andrey mirtchovski 2009-09-22 1:26 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-22 3:36 ` ron minnich @ 2009-09-22 14:17 ` J.R. Mauro 2009-09-22 14:47 ` David Leimbach ` (2 more replies) 2 siblings, 3 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: J.R. Mauro @ 2009-09-22 14:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:12 PM, andrey mirtchovski <mirtchovski@gmail.com> wrote: > it's on slashdot, it must be true: > > "During a roundtable discussion at LinuxCon in Portland, Oregon this > afternoon, moderator and Novell distinguished engineer James Bottomley > asked Tovalds whether Linux kernel features were being released too > fast, before the kernel is stabilized. > > Citing an internal Intel study that tracked kernel releases, Bottomley > said Linux performance had dropped about two per centage points at > every release, for a cumulative drop of about 12 per cent over the > last ten releases. "Is this a problem?" he asked. > > "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds." And instead of revising the design, I think we're going to see them go for the 2-percent speedups here and there. Another thing they won't consider is having separate versions for high-end servers and PCs. I don't understand why Torvalds thinks Linux has to be all things to all people. > > well, not really slashdot: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_bloated_huge/ > > Ron, did you throw anything at Linus while you were there? :) > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 14:17 ` J.R. Mauro @ 2009-09-22 14:47 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 20:14 ` Richard Uhtenwoldt 2009-09-22 20:55 ` Chad Brown 2 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: David Leimbach @ 2009-09-22 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1898 bytes --] On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, J.R. Mauro <jrm8005@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:12 PM, andrey mirtchovski > <mirtchovski@gmail.com> wrote: > > it's on slashdot, it must be true: > > > > "During a roundtable discussion at LinuxCon in Portland, Oregon this > > afternoon, moderator and Novell distinguished engineer James Bottomley > > asked Tovalds whether Linux kernel features were being released too > > fast, before the kernel is stabilized. > > > > Citing an internal Intel study that tracked kernel releases, Bottomley > > said Linux performance had dropped about two per centage points at > > every release, for a cumulative drop of about 12 per cent over the > > last ten releases. "Is this a problem?" he asked. > > > > "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds." > > And instead of revising the design, I think we're going to see them go > for the 2-percent speedups here and there. > > Another thing they won't consider is having separate versions for > high-end servers and PCs. I don't understand why Torvalds thinks Linux > has to be all things to all people. > > Having used uClinux on an embedded platform, my only advice is "for the love of god don't do that!!!". It's not that good software can't be written for it, it's that people think they're writing linux programs that the compatible APIs seem to almost encourage one to write, and the net result is chaos and debugging nightmares. If I ever get to sound off on an embedded platform choice again, uClinux is not going to be near the top of my list. If you want linux, make sure the target has an MMU. That's all :-) Dave > > > > well, not really slashdot: > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_bloated_huge/ > > > > Ron, did you throw anything at Linus while you were there? :) > > > > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2826 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 14:17 ` J.R. Mauro 2009-09-22 14:47 ` David Leimbach @ 2009-09-22 20:14 ` Richard Uhtenwoldt 2009-09-22 20:47 ` Jack Norton 2009-09-22 20:55 ` Chad Brown 2 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Richard Uhtenwoldt @ 2009-09-22 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs J.R. Mauro writes: >Another thing they won't consider is having separate versions for >high-end servers and PCs. I don't understand why Torvalds thinks Linux >has to be all things to all people. the Linux running on a high-end server is probably compiled from the same (evolving over time) source tree as the Linux running on a desktop. but cannot the same be said of Windows now that most desktops run Windows XP or a later version of Windows? cannot the same be said of OS X? Richard Uhtenwoldt http://sonic.net/~sielskr ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 20:14 ` Richard Uhtenwoldt @ 2009-09-22 20:47 ` Jack Norton 2009-09-22 22:31 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-23 1:55 ` David Arnold 0 siblings, 2 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Jack Norton @ 2009-09-22 20:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs Richard Uhtenwoldt wrote: > J.R. Mauro writes: > >> Another thing they won't consider is having separate versions for >> high-end servers and PCs. I don't understand why Torvalds thinks Linux >> has to be all things to all people. >> > > the Linux running on a high-end server is probably compiled from > the same (evolving over time) source tree as the Linux running on > a desktop. > > but cannot the same be said of Windows now that most desktops run > Windows XP or a later version of Windows? cannot the same be > said of OS X? > > Richard Uhtenwoldt > http://sonic.net/~sielskr > > The big topic for me is the realtime patch (the one mentioned at rt.wiki.kernel.org). I dabble in computer based audio, and this patch is mandatory for low latency audio. There is a big debate as to why this isn't pushed into the main kernel source and/or forked in the name of such things. All I will say is that on OSX I can use jack daemon and get low latency audio right out of the box and on windows I can use low latency drivers such as ASIO and the newer WaveRT. It's even more tragic as there are tons of great linux audio tools, but they are a hard sale because you need to apply the rt-patch (which for a musician is like performing open heart surgery). In the end I don't care what the linux devs do, but they need to come up with a game plan and either fork (server, desktop linux) or include it all and try and make everyone happy (the latter will end in chaos me thinks). What I just described is the number one topic that brings up the 'fork linux' debate (at least it's the one I always pay attention to). Speaking of realtime, I am trying my hardest to port some of our custom control applications that we use around my engineering lab to inferno (anyone doing something similar? inferno list is not exactly a popular place apparently). Right now I spit out a python script on the fly for everything (quick turnaround) and it's getting old (plus I want to be able to control anything in the lab from any machine in the lab -- i.e. a perfect place for some inferno installs) -jack ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 20:47 ` Jack Norton @ 2009-09-22 22:31 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-23 1:55 ` David Arnold 1 sibling, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-22 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sep 22, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Jack Norton wrote: > Richard Uhtenwoldt wrote: >> J.R. Mauro writes: >> >>> Another thing they won't consider is having separate versions for >>> high-end servers and PCs. I don't understand why Torvalds thinks >>> Linux >>> has to be all things to all people. >>> >> >> the Linux running on a high-end server is probably compiled from >> the same (evolving over time) source tree as the Linux running on >> a desktop. >> >> but cannot the same be said of Windows now that most desktops run >> Windows XP or a later version of Windows? cannot the same be >> said of OS X? >> >> Richard Uhtenwoldt >> http://sonic.net/~sielskr >> >> > The big topic for me is the realtime patch (the one mentioned at > rt.wiki.kernel.org). I dabble in computer based audio, and this > patch is mandatory for low latency audio. There is a big debate as > to why this isn't pushed into the main kernel source and/or forked > in the name of such things. All I will say is that on OSX I can use > jack daemon and get low latency audio right out of the box and on > windows I can use low latency drivers such as ASIO and the newer > WaveRT. It's even more tragic as there are tons of great linux > audio tools, but they are a hard sale because you need to apply the > rt-patch (which for a musician is like performing open heart surgery). > In the end I don't care what the linux devs do, but they need to > come up with a game plan and either fork (server, desktop linux) or > include it all and try and make everyone happy (the latter will end > in chaos me thinks). Funny when you consider the only music oriented systems still alive are Gentoo, and 64Studio. Everything else either has dropped out, or hasn't been updated in forever. It even looks like this might happen for 64Studio. I don't know if it's just for my couple sound cards (emu10k1, and a couple RME's) but it seems audio quality has gotten worse since I first dabbled in Linux audio. > What I just described is the number one topic that brings up the > 'fork linux' debate (at least it's the one I always pay attention to). > Speaking of realtime, I am trying my hardest to port some of our > custom control applications that we use around my engineering lab to > inferno (anyone doing something similar? inferno list is not > exactly a popular place apparently). Right now I spit out a python > script on the fly for everything (quick turnaround) and it's getting > old (plus I want to be able to control anything in the lab from any > machine in the lab -- i.e. a perfect place for some inferno installs) > > -jack > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 20:47 ` Jack Norton 2009-09-22 22:31 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-23 1:55 ` David Arnold 2009-09-24 14:21 ` Patrick Kelly 1 sibling, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: David Arnold @ 2009-09-23 1:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On 22/09/2009, at 4:47 PM, Jack Norton wrote: > In the end I don't care what the linux devs do, but they need to > come up with a game plan and either fork (server, desktop linux) or > include it all and try and make everyone happy (the latter will end > in chaos me thinks). There are several Linux distributions aimed at digital audio workstation usage. They come with an appropriate kernel configuration/ patchset (and audio daemons). The notion that Linux should fork ignores the reality that most distributions have different kernel configurations and source already. The OpenMoko or Android kernel is quite different to that running on an SGI Altix (and that's ignoring stuff like uClinux, RT- Linux, etc). d ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-23 1:55 ` David Arnold @ 2009-09-24 14:21 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-24 15:46 ` Jacob Todd 2009-09-24 15:56 ` Iruata Souza 0 siblings, 2 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-24 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1279 bytes --] On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Arnold <davida@pobox.com> wrote: > On 22/09/2009, at 4:47 PM, Jack Norton wrote: > > In the end I don't care what the linux devs do, but they need to come up >> with a game plan and either fork (server, desktop linux) or include it all >> and try and make everyone happy (the latter will end in chaos me thinks). >> > > There are several Linux distributions aimed at digital audio workstation > usage. They come with an appropriate kernel configuration/patchset (and > audio daemons). > Yes, but as I said, most of them haven't been updated in forever, and mostly run on hardware from 1-2 years ago (debian philosophy?) Gentoo seems to be the only one regularly updated, and keeping itself up to date. That or build your own kernel, with patches, which as stated, most musicians aren't going to want to do. If there is a distrobution thats still around and regularly updated, please, let us know. > > The notion that Linux should fork ignores the reality that most > distributions have different kernel configurations and source already. The > OpenMoko or Android kernel is quite different to that running on an SGI > Altix (and that's ignoring stuff like uClinux, RT-Linux, etc). > > > > d > > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1891 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-24 14:21 ` Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-24 15:46 ` Jacob Todd 2009-09-24 15:56 ` Iruata Souza 1 sibling, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Jacob Todd @ 2009-09-24 15:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1510 bytes --] On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:21:35AM -0400, Patrick Kelly wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Arnold <davida@pobox.com> wrote: > > > On 22/09/2009, at 4:47 PM, Jack Norton wrote: > > > > In the end I don't care what the linux devs do, but they need to come up > >> with a game plan and either fork (server, desktop linux) or include it all > >> and try and make everyone happy (the latter will end in chaos me thinks). > >> > > > > There are several Linux distributions aimed at digital audio workstation > > usage. They come with an appropriate kernel configuration/patchset (and > > audio daemons). > > > > Yes, but as I said, most of them haven't been updated in forever, and mostly > run on hardware from 1-2 years ago (debian philosophy?) > > Gentoo seems to be the only one regularly updated, and keeping itself up to > date. That or build your own kernel, with patches, which as stated, most > musicians aren't going to want to do. > > If there is a distrobution thats still around and regularly updated, please, > let us know. > > > > > The notion that Linux should fork ignores the reality that most > > distributions have different kernel configurations and source already. The > > OpenMoko or Android kernel is quite different to that running on an SGI > > Altix (and that's ignoring stuff like uClinux, RT-Linux, etc). > > > > > > > > d > > > > > > There's 64 studio (http://64studio.com). -- Jake Todd // If it isn't broke, tweak it! [-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-24 14:21 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-24 15:46 ` Jacob Todd @ 2009-09-24 15:56 ` Iruata Souza 2009-09-28 3:35 ` Patrick Kelly 1 sibling, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Iruata Souza @ 2009-09-24 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Patrick Kelly <kameo76890@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Arnold <davida@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> On 22/09/2009, at 4:47 PM, Jack Norton wrote: >> >>> In the end I don't care what the linux devs do, but they need to come up >>> with a game plan and either fork (server, desktop linux) or include it all >>> and try and make everyone happy (the latter will end in chaos me thinks). >> >> There are several Linux distributions aimed at digital audio workstation >> usage. They come with an appropriate kernel configuration/patchset (and >> audio daemons). > > > Yes, but as I said, most of them haven't been updated in forever, and mostly > run on hardware from 1-2 years ago (debian philosophy?) > > Gentoo seems to be the only one regularly updated, and keeping itself up to > date. That or build your own kernel, with patches, which as stated, most > musicians aren't going to want to do. > > If there is a distrobution thats still around and regularly updated, please, > let us know. > wrong door, sir. search for linux in the door with the penguin. thanks ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-24 15:56 ` Iruata Souza @ 2009-09-28 3:35 ` Patrick Kelly 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Patrick Kelly @ 2009-09-28 3:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 'Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs' -----Original Message----- From: 9fans-bounces@9fans.net [mailto:9fans-bounces@9fans.net] On Behalf Of Iruata Souza Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:56 AM To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs Subject: Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Patrick Kelly <kameo76890@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Arnold <davida@pobox.com> wrote: >> >> On 22/09/2009, at 4:47 PM, Jack Norton wrote: >> >>> In the end I don't care what the linux devs do, but they need to >>> come up with a game plan and either fork (server, desktop linux) or >>> include it all and try and make everyone happy (the latter will end in chaos me thinks). >> >> There are several Linux distributions aimed at digital audio >> workstation usage. They come with an appropriate kernel >> configuration/patchset (and audio daemons). > > > Yes, but as I said, most of them haven't been updated in forever, and > mostly run on hardware from 1-2 years ago (debian philosophy?) > > Gentoo seems to be the only one regularly updated, and keeping itself > up to date. That or build your own kernel, with patches, which as > stated, most musicians aren't going to want to do. > > If there is a distrobution thats still around and regularly updated, > please, let us know. > wrong door, sir. search for linux in the door with the penguin. Thanks It was a question not meant to be answered. I should have stressed that somehow. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 14:17 ` J.R. Mauro 2009-09-22 14:47 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 20:14 ` Richard Uhtenwoldt @ 2009-09-22 20:55 ` Chad Brown 2 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Chad Brown @ 2009-09-22 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs On Sep 22, 2009, at 7:17 AM, J.R. Mauro wrote: > Another thing they won't consider is having separate versions for > high-end servers and PCs. I don't understand why Torvalds thinks Linux > has to be all things to all people. Back when I cared about linux for servers (not high-end hardware, but large numbers of easily repalceable dedicated servers), our system was based on a `server-leaning' kernel from one of the public forks (originally the `-ac' series, from Alan Cox, but we switched to someone else's kernel fork at some point). I don't know what things are like since the millennium, but from 1998 until about 2000 there were both server-focused kernel trees and well- known kernel forks of `linux', and that doesn't include the wider- ranging stuff like RTLinux or Mosix (to pick two). *Chad ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <<Pine.BSI.4.64.0909220654020.23231@malasada.lava.net>]
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon [not found] <<Pine.BSI.4.64.0909220654020.23231@malasada.lava.net> @ 2009-09-22 17:13 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 18:27 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 22:13 ` Tim Newsham 0 siblings, 2 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-22 17:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > btw, there's even been one ukernel recently that has a formal > proof of correctness (against its specification and some containment > properties). Roughly a 10 man-year effort for about 7.5kloc. > Not something you'd likely be able to do yet against something linux- > sized. the other way of looking at this is all the complex and error prone stuff is not prooved. i'm not clear on what all functional correctness entails. can a functionally correct program suffer from deadlock or livelock? - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 17:13 ` erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-22 18:27 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 22:13 ` Tim Newsham 1 sibling, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: David Leimbach @ 2009-09-22 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 917 bytes --] On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:13 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>wrote: > > btw, there's even been one ukernel recently that has a formal > > proof of correctness (against its specification and some containment > > properties). Roughly a 10 man-year effort for about 7.5kloc. > > Not something you'd likely be able to do yet against something linux- > > sized. > > the other way of looking at this is all the complex and error > prone stuff is not prooved. > > i'm not clear on what all functional correctness entails. can > a functionally correct program suffer from deadlock or livelock? > > I'm not sure... I can tell you when I spawn threads in haskell that, while testing, the runtime seems to detect certain deadlock states, tells me about them, and then the program crashes. I like that a little better than deadlock :-) How that all works is a lit Dave > - erik > > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1481 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 17:13 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 18:27 ` David Leimbach @ 2009-09-22 22:13 ` Tim Newsham 2009-09-22 22:25 ` Tim Newsham 1 sibling, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Tim Newsham @ 2009-09-22 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs > i'm not clear on what all functional correctness entails. can > a functionally correct program suffer from deadlock or livelock? Yes. It depends on if that property was stated as part of the specification of what correctness means. That is definitely something that can be stated and proven. I'm not sure if their spec stated that correctness means no deadlocks or if they explicitely stated that as a property and then proved it. The spec is publically available but I havent studied it. The proofs are not yet available. There are some papers that talk about some of what they have done. > - erik Tim Newsham http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 22:13 ` Tim Newsham @ 2009-09-22 22:25 ` Tim Newsham 2009-09-22 22:44 ` Jason Catena 0 siblings, 1 reply; 46+ messages in thread From: Tim Newsham @ 2009-09-22 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs >> i'm not clear on what all functional correctness entails. can I thought I'd go into a little more detail about what they did since my last email probably doesnt clear it up very much. They wrote a model of their operating system in a high level language (Haskell). They then translated the model into a language suitable for theorem proving (Isabelle/HOL) and they proved certain properties about the model. I don't know specifics on what all was proven, but they did mention that they processes are properly isolated (one process cannot write to the memory of another process except through certain specific and controlled message passing primitives). They then manually translated the spec into C and made proofs that the model and the C implementation behave the same way. There were no proofs about the behavior of the C compiler or the underlying cpu. So there should be no defects relating to the properties they proved unless they are hardware or compiler bugs. There can still be bugs for properties which they did not prove. Also the proof is over the microkernel only, its obviously still possible to write an OS on top of the kernel that has its own bugs. You can find out a lot more from their papers and websites: http://ertos.nicta.com.au/research/sel4/ http://ertos.nicta.com.au/research/l4.verified/ http://ertos.nicta.com.au/research/l4.verified/proof.pml Tim Newsham http://www.thenewsh.com/~newsham/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon 2009-09-22 22:25 ` Tim Newsham @ 2009-09-22 22:44 ` Jason Catena 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: Jason Catena @ 2009-09-22 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs > There were no proofs about the behavior of the C compiler or the underlying cpu. In related news, there is a verified Clight compiler out there for PowerPC machines. Leroy, X. 2009. Formal verification of a realistic compiler. Commun. ACM 52, 7 (Jul. 2009), 107-115. DOI= http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1538788.1538814 This paper reports on the development and formal verification (proof of semantic preservation) of CompCert, a compiler from Clight (a large subset of the C programming language) to PowerPC assembly code, using the Coq proof assistant both for programming the compiler and for proving its correctness. Such a verified compiler is useful in the context of critical software and its formal verification: the verification of the compiler guarantees that the safety properties proved on the source code hold for the executable compiled code as well. > Tim Newsham Jason Catena ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <<012201ca3fec$c58f6020$50ae2060$@com>]
* Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon [not found] <<012201ca3fec$c58f6020$50ae2060$@com> @ 2009-09-28 3:38 ` erik quanstrom 0 siblings, 0 replies; 46+ messages in thread From: erik quanstrom @ 2009-09-28 3:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans > wrong door, sir. > search for linux in the door with the penguin. > Thanks they no longer have a door. they have a two-door interlock system. you can enter the space any time you'd like, but you may never leave. that's the hotel linux for ya. - erik ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 46+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-09-30 13:22 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 46+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2009-09-21 16:22 [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon ron minnich 2009-09-21 16:44 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-21 17:04 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-21 17:29 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-21 17:02 ` tlaronde 2009-09-21 17:20 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-30 13:22 ` Ethan Grammatikidis 2009-09-21 17:41 ` Jack Norton 2009-09-21 17:53 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-21 19:32 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-21 19:42 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-22 1:12 ` andrey mirtchovski 2009-09-22 1:26 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-22 2:33 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 2:52 ` andrey mirtchovski 2009-09-22 2:58 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-22 3:02 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 6:15 ` Tim Newsham 2009-09-22 14:23 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 16:57 ` Tim Newsham 2009-09-22 13:48 ` Eric Van Hensbergen 2009-09-22 14:44 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 14:39 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 14:47 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 15:04 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 15:14 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 16:26 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 3:36 ` ron minnich 2009-09-22 3:38 ` ron minnich 2009-09-22 14:17 ` J.R. Mauro 2009-09-22 14:47 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 20:14 ` Richard Uhtenwoldt 2009-09-22 20:47 ` Jack Norton 2009-09-22 22:31 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-23 1:55 ` David Arnold 2009-09-24 14:21 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-24 15:46 ` Jacob Todd 2009-09-24 15:56 ` Iruata Souza 2009-09-28 3:35 ` Patrick Kelly 2009-09-22 20:55 ` Chad Brown [not found] <<Pine.BSI.4.64.0909220654020.23231@malasada.lava.net> 2009-09-22 17:13 ` erik quanstrom 2009-09-22 18:27 ` David Leimbach 2009-09-22 22:13 ` Tim Newsham 2009-09-22 22:25 ` Tim Newsham 2009-09-22 22:44 ` Jason Catena [not found] <<012201ca3fec$c58f6020$50ae2060$@com> 2009-09-28 3:38 ` erik quanstrom
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).