Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Oct 2005 02:10:42 +0100 | From | Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <> | Subject | Re: 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 <lkcl@lkcl.net> 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 outdated, really soon.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 that.
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" :)
l.
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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |