[lkml]   [2005]   [Oct]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: what's next for the linux kernel?
    On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 05:04:51PM -0700, Martin J. Bligh wrote:
    > --Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <> wrote (on Monday, October 03, 2005 00:05:45 +0100):
    > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2005 at 05:05:42PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
    > >> On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > and, what is the linux kernel?
    > >> >
    > >> > it's a daft, monolithic design that is suitable and faster on
    > >> > single-processor systems, and that design is going to look _really_
    > >> > outdated, really soon.
    > >>
    > >> Linux already has a number of scalable SMP synchronisation
    > >> mechanisms.
    > >
    > > ... and you are tied in to the decisions made by the linux kernel
    > > developers.
    > Yes. As are the rest of us. So if you want to implement something
    > different, that's your perogative. So feel free to go do it
    > somewhere else, and quit whining on this list.
    > We are not your implementation bitches. If you think it's such a great
    > idea, do it yourself.

    martin, i'm going to take a leaf from the great rusty russell's book,
    because i was very impressed with the professional way in which he
    dealt with someone who posted such immature and out-of-line comments:
    he rewrote them in a much more non-hostile manner and then replied to

    so, here goes: i'm copying the above few [relevant] paragraphs
    below, then rewriting them, here:

    > >
    > > ... and you are tied in to the decisions made by the linux kernel
    > > developers.
    > Yes, this is very true: we are all somewhat at the mercy of their
    > decisions. However, fortunately, they had the foresight to work
    > with free software, so any of us can try something different, if
    > we wish.
    > i am slightly confused by your message, however: forgive me for
    > asking this but you are not expecting us to implement such a radical
    > redesign, are you?

    martin, hi, thank you for responding.

    well... actually, as it turns out, the l4linux and l4ka people have
    already done most of the work!!

    i believe you may have missed part of my message (it was a bit long, i
    admit) and i thank you for the opportunity, that your message presents,
    to reiterate this: l4linux _exists_ - last time i checked (some months
    ago) it had a port of 2.6.11 to the L4 microkernel.

    so, in more ways than one, no i am of course not expecting people to
    just take orders from someone as mad as myself :)

    i really should reiterate this: i _invite_ people to _consider_ the
    direction that processor designs - not just any "off-the-wall"
    processor designs but _mainstream_ x86-compatible processor designs -
    are likely to take. and they are becoming more and more parallel.

    the kinds of questions that the experienced linux kernel
    maintainers and developers really need to ask is: can the
    present linux kernel design _cope_ with such parallelism?

    is there an easier way?

    that's mainly why i wished you "good luck" :)


    p.s. martin. _don't_ do that again. i don't care who you are:
    internet archives are forever and your rudeness will be noted
    by google-users and other search-users - long after you are dead.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-10-03 03:13    [W:0.023 / U:36.240 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site