SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Assuming there is no update to the bare bones microkernel, you can essentially upgrade and restart vital kernel code with security/bug fixes without rebooting the whole computer. I think this is a large advantage.
You have a good point. However, it's important to remember that, especially when talking about security patches, your network services will still almost certainly go down during the reload.
This advantage in a practical setting will usually, at most, amount to less downtime, and not none.
Then... switch to Windows? Linux is far from perfect and stupid crud like this is bound to happen. Otherwise I'm not sure what you want me to say.
How did HURD run on that chipset, by the way?
No, I'm gradually switching to a micro-kernel based operating system which actually boots ... BTW, Arch Hurd is booting just fine with the same VIA chipset.
What makes you grow "tired" of monolithic kernels? Do you port the kernel into embedded devices? Do you use it in small, memory-limited situations? Because, for all of the ideological claptrap about microkernels, a microkernel will all of its accompanying daemons up, as they would be 99.9999% of the time in a server or desktop environment, is essentially the same thing that a monolithic kernel is . . . it's just flowed out differently.
Please . . . nobody post some benchmarks showing how "fast" Hurd is . . . as has already been pointed out, it supports next to nothing.
HURD isn't designed to be faster than Linux...if anything it would be slower because of the client/server architecture in microkernels. A monolithic kernel will always be faster (and if memory is a concern the modularity of the Linux kernel will take care of that) -- it's just the possible crashes (a minor driver crash in a monolithic kernel will take down the whole system) and the uptime (avoiding rebooting the entire system when upgrading parts of the kernel) that are the main pulls for microkernels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foodown
In my opinion, there is really no need for Hurd . . . it has no real "calling." The only reason for its continued existence or development is that Richard Stallman and various other FSF nomenclature extremists hate the word "Linux" and are on a never-ending quest to stamp it out . . . for no reason. (These are the same people who actually care about the vapid Linux vs GNU/Linux "controversy.")
If there was a need for Hurd, people would work on it and get it serviceable, as they have continued to do with the Linux kernel, FreeBSD, and all the other OSes out there which are actually useful, as opposed to letting it forever remain the next best thing if you can't get your hands on a copy of AmigaOS or Macintosh System 7.
Kind of harsh, considering HURD existed before Linux. Linux was used because it worked well at the time, while HURD really didn't (despite being around for longer). If that ever becomes untrue, then GNU would obviously push for HURD (though Linux would of course survive since both the kernel and userspace are open source). Assuming GNU can ever actually get HURD working well and on diverse hardware, unless absolute peak performance is a must, HURD may very well be a better alternative, especially for long-term servers. I don't see why anyone should want HURD to fail...even if you stick to Linux on a desktop I still believe HURD would make a nice alternative for server use, while userspace remains fairly compatible with both. For now I'll stick to GNU/Linux and/or *BSD because they work well...but for the future, if it is better for my usage case, I would switch to HURD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by foodown
You have a good point. However, it's important to remember that, especially when talking about security patches, your network services will still almost certainly go down during the reload.
This advantage in a practical setting will usually, at most, amount to less downtime, and not none.
I read your posts as "I'm crying because a cheap piece of crap chip set" that Linux tried to support without any documentation doesn't work properly.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I suppose. Regardless of your opinion about a "crap chip set", computers with these chip sets (thousands) didn't boot for 6 months. I'd say that issue was pretty damn serious.
Quote:
Why don't you just install Windows and call it a day?
Try rereading my previous posts ... much more carefully.
Quote:
Also if you like HURD so much, why not just start you're own distro?
Personally, I think the answer is obvious. In case the answer isn't clear, I currently don't have the time to maintain a distribution nor do I think it's necessary with current offerings like Arch Hurd. Time will tell whether problems with recent kernels, not just the problem with the VIA chip sets a few years ago, will force distributors of Linux to look elsewhere as users begin looking elsewhere. As a user, I already am looking for alternatives based on a micro-kernel. Secondly, I never said that I "like HURD so much", but you're obviously prone to exaggeration and misinterpretation of my posts. Granted, I'm beginning to dislike the Linux kernel as it's increasingly buggy in my experience. Actually, the unfortunate events back around 2006 with the non-booting VIA chip sets forced me to look at alternatives, e.g. the HURD, Minix, and HelenOS.
I have a question, do you use the stock kernel? Or do you recompile you're own kernels? Because it sounds to me that you just use the stock kernel and all it a day when something breaks, and when it doesn't work you look for "alternatives". Is this correct? Personally I never use the stock kernel for anything, I find it useless and bloated because 90% of the modules or built in functions are not for my notebook/desktop/server(s) so rebuilding the kernel to me is a must for me.
I think you like the HURD kernel so much because in each of your posts you seem to try to make the HURD kernel look so great and then when a magical chip set VIA of all brands doesn't work you boycott the Linux kernel? these things happen, Linux is far from perfect, but it works, and I am talking now, not 6 years ago, not 4 years ago,not 9 months ago, but now! Because I am not sure if you are aware, hardware, nor Linux stands still, what doesn't work today may work in a week who knows, but it's going to be just like HURD, wait until the most bleeding edge hardware comes out, HURD won't support it either, no biggie.
Last edited by ProtoformX; 09-25-2010 at 03:22 AM.
I have a question, do you use the stock kernel? Or do you recompile you're own kernels? Because it sounds to me that you just use the stock kernel and all it a day when something breaks, and when it doesn't work you look for "alternatives". Is this correct?
No.
Quote:
I think you like the HURD kernel so much because in each of your posts you seem to try to make the HURD kernel look so great and then when a magical chip set VIA of all brands doesn't work you boycott the Linux kernel?
Do you have a problem with reading comprehension? Seriously. As I've said previously, I don't necessarily "like the HURD kernel so much". Actually, the Mach kernel has it's share of problems. For example, the Mach kernel must be updated to exploit x86_64 architectures. I do want reliability, however, so I've settled on a micro-kernel based operating system whether it's GNU's HURD or Minix 3, or ... As I've also previously stated, I do have a problem with increasingly buggy Linux kernels which can manifest in bizarre, hard to diagnose problems in addition to kernels which simply won't boot.
Quote:
these things happen, Linux is far from perfect, but it works, and I am talking now, not 6 years ago, not 4 years ago,not 9 months ago, but now! Because I am not sure if you are aware, hardware, nor Linux stands still, what doesn't work today may work in a week who knows, but it's going to be just like HURD, wait until the most bleeding edge hardware comes out, HURD won't support it either, no biggie.
I guess these things (non-booting kernels for 6 months) happen with Linux kernels. As I've also already stated, GNU's HURD actually boots on the same VIA chip set that a 2006-2007 Linux kernel wouldn't boot for 6 months. The VIA chip set was hardly bleeding edge at the time (not old either) and you're blatantly wrong that it's "no biggie" to have a non-booting kernel for 6 months. Any computer of mine better boot not only today, but tomorrow or the operating system is history. Granted, it's important to have a generally working product and Linux has been an acceptable alternative to MS and Apple until the last few years. Even while searching for alternatives, I'll likely continue using Linux at least for the next few years. Again, time will tell whether the developers of the Linux kernel are on the right track. Personally, I think not and Tanenbaum will be proven correct eventually.
tpreitzel, maybe I missed some details you gave somewhere else in the discussion, but are you saying that you had a working kernel and suddenly it stopped booting? If it was an upgrade that broke it, you could have continued with the last working kernel, if not, it must be a strange bug -- something similar to Y2K maybe.
But the point is, in any case, the same could have happened with a microkernel, too. A bad code that rejects to run on a certain chipset will do so regardless of the kernel design, and if it is relevant to something crucial such as booting, you will end up with a useless system anyway. If it is not a vital component then you should be able to disable it in Linux, too. Use a microkernel if you like, but if it has buggy code, what is it good for? The end result is the same, your hardware won't work.
On the other hand I agree about the advantages of microkernels when it comes to downtime and security. If this is your main argument that's okay, but the problems you mentioned at the beginning don't seem to be relevant to the monolithic structure.
How is bickering about 'he said, they said' add to the topic of micro-kernels or the original topic?
Both types would be bloated with modules if lots of people would use both
Both types have advantages
Both types are viable options if they have people supporting them
Both types are reliable because modules moved into the stable branch are good enough to be used
And both types have their issues.
Is part of the reason the HURD got delayed infinitely because everybody who knows how to program a kernel in their free time works on the Linux kernel? I'm not saying either one is superior. I'm just guessing since Linux is up and running already all the brain power gravitates towards it.
Is part of the reason the HURD got delayed infinitely because everybody who knows how to program a kernel in their free time works on the Linux kernel? I'm not saying either one is superior. I'm just guessing since Linux is up and running already all the brain power gravitates towards it.
I guess that is the main reason. HURD looked good on paper, but it appears that ideology/politics got in the way of progress, and wasn't even practical anyways. This is already the case since HURD is just so far behind that it is just not relevant.
Sometimes it is just best to call it quits and move on.
I would personally love to see a hybrid Hurd/Linux kernel being used, considering that a hybrid kernel is capable of having a GUI built into it, but a microkernel isn't and a monolithic kernel isn't.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.