Re: Debian alternative kernels [OT]
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.
Reply to: