FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-28-2010, 04:02 AM
thib
 
Default Debian alternative kernels

consul tores wrote:

Yes, Linux (kernel) is very tweakable, but normal users are not able
to compile their own kernel; i am more remembering when i could
install using 3 diskettes, and now i can not do it anymore.

If, we consider that the environment has changed; we have Red Hut,
Ubuntu and Suse; pushing to include every thing into the kernel, what
is the best for them, then we have a huge kernel; which is not the
best for older ordenators, but it is the best for newer boxes. As we
can see, Linus is been pushed to built a huger kernel.


I'm sorry but this is quite wrong. Nobody's forcing anyone; on the
contrary, kernel developers *want* to integrate many things in mainline, and
for very good reasons. See this file[1] for some (about the driver model).


1: linux/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt

See it's not the big distributions pushing stuff in the kernel, it's mainly
(among other things) new drivers to support more hardware, including very
old machines. Everything is extremely well organized and modularized, and
you're able to build a kernel with just what you need. Again, if you can't,
someone else can, that's what distributions are for; but you can't expect a
*general-purpose* distribution to strip off their kernels and drop support
for a range of hardware for no reason at all. As Stefan said, Linux does a
very very good job on embedded systems, you can't deny that.



If, Debian has a very tested own kernel (Hurd), it should be focused
to its users, who probably are using older hardware, and maybe are not
using non-free software. This is why, i think that having a Debian
kernel, the users could be covered against global decisions.


The Hurd is not Debian, it's GNU. Again, there's no "global decisions" at
the kernel-level (at least not about what you're referring to), the
distributions make the decisions of how they want to distribute the kernel;
if you're not happy with the Debian kernels, well, maybe you ought to
search for a more specific distribution (Debian itself has enough
derivatives). Don't forget we're talking on the -user mailing list of one
of the most universal projects.


The thing is, the Hurd won't change that. If it seems tinier, well it's
probably because it currently has less complete support. Microkernels don't
exactly require less code "in general" AFAIK, it's a matter of architecture
and where and how the code runs. I don't believe we should even think about
having the monolithic vs micro kernel discussion here by the way; both
Linux and the Hurd are very cleanly written and do what they can the best
they can, given their respective design limitations.



[snip]

No, not the development model; i am refering to the structure, a
monolitic base system, which is very small and stable.


Well, it's usually seen as such because it's tied with its core userland.
Debian uses GNU instead, so *in that regard*, I don't believe Linux and the
FreeBSD kernel alone are *that* different. I would rather compare them by
their development models, philosophies or simply licenses, for example.
Someone might be able to troutslap me one that one.



Yes, i think in the same way, we need to test Hurd in an efective way.
it could help to manage the actual tendency to emulate Windows,
obtaning a sipler/efective/funtional OS. I could be wrong, but it
seems the most of us are prefering stability.


A tendency to emulate Windows at the kernel level? I don't think so. This
matter is a matter of the userland; and there are many, many alternatives
to GNOME and KDE already - heck, even living without a prebuilt and
integrated DE isn't so hard. Anyway, testing the Hurd is certainly a noble
thing to do, but even if it gains traction, it won't get a mysterious
anti-WIMP DE that Linux already has. It's other needs it answers to.


-t


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4BFF4052.9000909@stammed.net">http://lists.debian.org/4BFF4052.9000909@stammed.net
 
Old 05-28-2010, 11:30 PM
consul tores
 
Default Debian alternative kernels

2010/5/27 thib <thib@stammed.net>:
> consul tores wrote:
>> If, we consider that the environment has changed; we have Red Hut,
>> Ubuntu and Suse; pushing to include every thing into the kernel, what
>> is the best for them, then we have a huge kernel; which is not the
>> best for older ordenators, but it is the best for newer boxes. As we
>> can see, Linus is been pushed to built a huger kernel.
>
> I'm sorry but this is quite wrong. *Nobody's forcing anyone; *on the
> contrary, kernel developers *want* to integrate many things in mainline, and
> for very good reasons. *See this file[1] for some (about the driver model).

Yes, it is true, but i am not talking about people; i am talking about
forces, as example, we have desktop users and server users in Debian,
when the demand is at the desktop users side, it pushes to increase
the effort to the desktop, and if the demand is for servers, it pushes
to the server side; It happens with Suse, Red Hut and Ubuntu. Then the
logical tendency related to the kernel could be to build a generic
huge kernel.

>
> *1: *linux/Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt
>
> See it's not the big distributions pushing stuff in the kernel, it's mainly
> (among other things) new drivers to support more hardware, including very
> old machines. *Everything is extremely well organized and modularized, and
> you're able to build a kernel with just what you need. *Again, if you can't,
> someone else can, that's what distributions are for; *but you can't expect a
> *general-purpose* distribution to strip off their kernels and drop support
> for a range of hardware for no reason at all. *As Stefan said, Linux does a
> very very good job on embedded systems, you can't deny that.

Yes, it is true in accord to my view point.

>> If, Debian has a very tested own kernel (Hurd), it should be focused
>> to its users, who probably are using older hardware, and maybe are not
>> using non-free software. This is why, i think that having a Debian
>> kernel, the users could be covered against global decisions.
>
> The Hurd is not Debian, it's GNU. *Again, there's no "global decisions" at
> the kernel-level (at least not about what you're referring to), the
> distributions make the decisions of how they want to distribute the kernel;
> *if you're not happy with the Debian kernels, well, maybe you ought to
> search for a more specific distribution (Debian itself has enough
> derivatives). *Don't forget we're talking on the -user mailing list of one
> of the most universal projects.

yes, Hurd is GNU.
Well, i think that a generic kernel needs a generic/global decision. I
understand clearly that Debian adapt kernels, thing which i like!
BTW, i do not know who you are, but i have used Debian for 10 years,
to administer Debian/OpenBSD/Slackware servers, and desktops; i prefer
Debian because it does not use non-free software on its default
installation. Its philosophy of freedom is enough for me.

> The thing is, the Hurd won't change that. *If it seems tinier, well it's
> probably because it currently has less complete support. *Microkernels don't
> exactly require less code "in general" AFAIK, it's a matter of architecture
> and where and how the code runs. *I don't believe we should even think about
> having the monolithic vs micro kernel discussion here by the way; *both
> Linux and the Hurd are very cleanly written and do what they can the best
> they can, given their respective design limitations.

This conversation is out of my knowledge.

>> [snip]
>> Yes, i think in the same way, we need to test Hurd in an efective way.
>> it could help to manage the actual tendency to emulate Windows,
>> obtaning a sipler/efective/funtional OS. I could be wrong, but it
>> seems the most of us are prefering stability.
>
> A tendency to emulate Windows at the kernel level? *I don't think so. *This
> matter is a matter of the userland; *and there are many, many alternatives
> to GNOME and KDE already - heck, even living without a prebuilt and
> integrated DE isn't so hard. *Anyway, testing the Hurd is certainly a noble
> thing to do, but even if it gains traction, it won't get a mysterious
> anti-WIMP DE that Linux already has. *It's other needs it answers to.

No, the tendency to imitate Windows as a desktop.
Yes, there are many alternative desktops and windows managers, but i
have only one compaq presario laptop to use, which is working
perfectly using Lenny-Kde; and 3 days ago i received a new tool, a
lenovo thinkPad Edge, on which Debian Lenny can not recognize the
video card, wireless card, and possibly another hardware. The point is
that in my laptop, i used to use kde 3.5 (Lenny), and now i have to
use testing or sid; when i could use the testing/sid base plus Kde
3.5, if it were existed a monolithic kernel+base testing/sid adding
kde 3.5.
Please, try to understand that i am not an expert in this field, i am
only a Debian user, my field of work is Agriculture!

> -t

francisco
--
Consultores Agropecuarios.
Administracion, Produccion, Capacitacion.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: AANLkTik7iecuzuHZCVWOM2_Ru3lXvqOBwGQcF1E0kNv6@mail .gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTik7iecuzuHZCVWOM2_Ru3lXvqOBwGQcF1E0kNv6@mail .gmail.com
 
Old 05-29-2010, 12:45 AM
thib
 
Default Debian alternative kernels

consul tores wrote:

No, the tendency to imitate Windows as a desktop.
Yes, there are many alternative desktops and windows managers, but i
have only one compaq presario laptop to use, which is working
perfectly using Lenny-Kde; and 3 days ago i received a new tool, a
lenovo thinkPad Edge, on which Debian Lenny can not recognize the
video card, wireless card, and possibly another hardware. The point is
that in my laptop, i used to use kde 3.5 (Lenny), and now i have to
use testing or sid; when i could use the testing/sid base plus Kde
3.5, if it were existed a monolithic kernel+base testing/sid adding
kde 3.5.


Okay, well, if I understand correctly the problem is about drivers
availability and KDE?


A workgroup[1] backports drivers for major Linux releases, so efforts about
recent drivers and stable distributions issues are beeing taken; support
should go to them.


1: http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/driver-backport

Upstream has stopped maintaining the KDE3 suite however (I believe), so
there's really nothing any distro can do about it. I must admit I didn't
really follow the KDE4 debate, but I'd blindly trust Debian not to package
broken software as important as a major DE. Maybe you can find some
"ports", but I think you'd probably be better off trying to improve the KDE4
suite by submitting them your ideas about what bothers you (as long as they
do not belong better to another project). Please ignore that if I seem to
have misunderstood you.


> Please, try to understand that i am not an expert in this field, i am
> only a Debian user, my field of work is Agriculture!

Yep, okay, I just hope I can make you find your peace with Linux after all.
My opinion is the one of a user as well, by the way, I'm really no expert
either.


So, in the end, no, I don't quite see how the BSDs model would do a better
job at maintaining older software in an unstable tree.


This discussion is a bit confusing, to be honest (again I'm sorry if I
misunderstand you). As it's quite rapidly drifting OT, it'd probably be
more appropriate to continue this off-list or in another thread, if you
really want to.


-t


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4C00639F.600@stammed.net">http://lists.debian.org/4C00639F.600@stammed.net
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:15 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org