| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Linux kernel 'getting buggier,' leader says | |
|
||
| Time: 14:59 EST/19:59 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Andrew Morton, the lead maintainer of the Linux production kernel, is worried that an increasing number of defects are appearing in the 2.6 version and is considering drastic action to resolve it. "I believe the 2.6 kernel is slowly getting buggier. It seems we're adding bugs at a higher rate than we're fixing them," Morton said in a talk at the LinuxTag conference in Wiesbaden, Germany, on Friday. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 149 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:24:51 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 2231 (71.126.169.66) at 5/6/2006 8:26:36 PM |
| The first step in fixing a problem is admitting you've got a problem. |
| #2 By 12071 (203.206.253.53) at 5/7/2006 1:57:28 AM |
| This is what happens when you mix your development and stable branches into one unlike the last 5 major cycles simply to try and get new features in quickly to please the masses! The quickest solution to these problems is to create a 2.7.x branch for development and then focus all efforts on stabilising 2.6.16 so that 2.6.17 is the stab;e 2.6 kernel everyone's been waiting for. Note that server wise you should be using 2.4.32 which is very stable. |
| #3 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/7/2006 12:27:55 PM |
| #2 2.4? Didn't that come out in January 2001? Thats old! |
| #4 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/7/2006 2:30:46 PM |
|
What I love about Kabuki boy is his hypocrisy.
A few threads away he berates Microsoft for not being able to get Vista out the door in a timely manner. Then in this thread he sugest Linux users go back to the previous version from 2001 because its stable and its no big deal that Linux hasn't been able to stabilize 2.6 which is 3 years old. Since 2001 Microsoft has managed two releases of very good and stable operating systems, 2003 Server and R2. IIS 6 is way more stable and secure than Apache. They've also come out with x64 versions of Xp and 2003 server. Anyone looking for stability looks for Windows Server. Not Linux. |
| #5 By 12071 (203.206.253.53) at 5/7/2006 9:38:30 PM |
|
#3 You are right, 2.4 did come out in Jan 2001. However I was talking about 2.4.32 which came out in November 2005 and is a very stable kernel.
#4 No hypocrisy at all - what you're seeing, and what you're unable to comprehend is how someone can like something and yet criticise it at the same time! You can't do that. With you it's a black and white thing where you've chosen the "Microsoft can do no evil" side and will stick to it regardless of what evidence presents itself. You base everything on emotion. "Then in this thread he sugest Linux users go back to the previous version from 2001 because its stable and its no big deal that Linux hasn't been able to stabilize 2.6 which is 3 years old." You're the only one who has suggested that. Mostly because you're ignorant and partly because you love to spread FUD! I said that on the server you should be running 2.4.32 (Nov 2005 in case you forgot and it's that imporntant!) rather than running the latest and greatest. At least that's what an responsible admin would do, not one like yourself who runs god knows what on his servers and patches them by testing the patches on his laptop and rebooting! Linux is a great OS with a really solid kernel (speaking about the 2.4.x series) and unfortunately due to outside pressures of trying to get in as many new features in the shortest period of time it's starting to head the other way (i.e. towards being no better than Windows). I and many others realise this and are more than happy to admit it and talk about it so that we can find a solution to the problem now rather than later when it's too late and we just have another Windows on our hands and no-one wants that! It's not too late to start up a 2.7.x development branch which will sort out all these issues whilst bringing the latest and greatest features desktop wise. |
| #6 By 28801 (68.45.209.133) at 5/7/2006 9:54:18 PM |
| Hey #5 let me know how that 2.7.x thing works out for ya. Meanwhile I'll be running Vista. |
| #7 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/7/2006 10:25:10 PM |
|
#5 2.4.32 is just 2.4.0 with some patches.
"You base everything on emotion. " Practical experience. Windows 2003 Server has been rock solid for us. IIS 6 has a superb track record for security. Those are real tangible reasons to use Microsoft. R2 is proving to be just as stable and solid for us, but I admit we've only got it on 10 or so servers and some virtual machines. When you suggest people skip 2.6 because it isn't stable enough, I take note. I'll stick with R2 than you very much. It seems to me that a bunch of Linux developers who focus on whats "cool" and forget about stability are not the ones to trust with a business. |
| #8 By 12071 (203.206.253.53) at 5/8/2006 12:30:27 AM |
|
#6 Feel free to use whatever suits you best even if that's vaporware.
#7 "2.4.32 is just 2.4.0 with some patches." 4 years worth of patches, updates, cleanups, refactorings and hardware support. Time wise it's like comparing the NT kernel in XP vs. the NT kernel in Windows Server 2003 R2. "When you suggest people skip 2.6 because it isn't stable enough, I take note." On the server side definitely. I wouldn't recommend that anyone run a 2.6 kernel on their server unless there happens to be something in it they desperately need and they've weight up the risks associated with running it. On the desktop, I'd say just to be cautious. Some people will find absolutely no issues with 2.6 whereas others could be affected quite a lot. If there's no features in 2.6 that you desperately need then you will be perfectly happy with 2.4.32. Remember that this isn't like Windows where the whole distribution is tied to a single version of the nt kernel - you can still run the same applications you do right now with an older kernel if you want. You can install the latest Ubuntu distribution and switch back to an earlier kernel if you like. The whole v2.6 experiment was an interesting change, at the time, to the standard development model to try and bring new features to the users as quickly as possible. By now it's quite obvious that it hasn't worked out - users are getting all the newest features at the cost of stability and it's just not worth it in the long run. So as I mentioned earlier, they either need to go back to having a separate development branch like that have up until 2.6 or they need to come up with another method of ensuring that new features are thoroughly tested before being added to what is meant to be the stable branch. BSD from what I have seen has the best development model (current, stable and release branches). The problem with it is that you trade features and new hardware support for enhanced security and stability. What the means at the end of the day is that you end up with a fantastic kernel to use on a server but not a desktop. |
| #9 By 28801 (65.90.202.11) at 5/8/2006 6:37:38 AM |
| #8 Proud of ya! |
| #10 By 32132 (142.32.208.232) at 5/8/2006 11:10:27 AM |
|
#8 "Time wise it's like comparing the NT kernel in XP vs. the NT kernel in Windows Server 2003 R2."
The 2.4 kernel is more like Windows NT itself. And someday, if they manage to work really hard for a couple of years, they might achieve the quality of Windows 2000. "The problem with it is that you trade features and new hardware support for enhanced security and stability. What the means at the end of the day is that you end up with a fantastic kernel to use on a server but not a desktop." Me, I prefer to run Windows 2003 Server R2 x64 as my desktop. Rock solid stable. ALlows me to run 64 bit virtual machines and 32 bit virtual machines for testing. Runs 99.99% of the software that runs on XP. Go ahead and run the decrepit 2.4 kernel. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 149 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:24:51 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
