Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Fork the linux kernel?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Brookline, MA
    Beans
    1,059
    Distro
    Ubuntu 10.10 Maverick Meerkat

    Re: Fork the linux kernel?

    The really big issue here is how the scheduler works, which you can patch without forking the kernel. So there really is no need to have a completely separate desktop kernel: just pick up where CK left off.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Malta
    Beans
    4,187
    Distro
    Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon

    Re: Fork the linux kernel?

    Has anyone used these -ck patches here? Are they that good?

    And, I am mostly against forking. There are already too many applications which have been forked to hell, a fork of the kernel would be crazy..

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Northern California
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Kubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackalope

    Re: Fork the linux kernel?

    Before you vote fork or not, may I suggest reading this real quick.

    http://www.linux.com/feature/119256

    My vote is to not fork, nor branch the Linux kernel.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Beans
    810

    Re: Fork the linux kernel?

    I actually switched to the low latency kernel and overall i feel my computer runs better. It took 3 complete reinstalls before it worked correctly and i don't think that my hardware is unsupported, everything was detected on the live CD and after the install.

    maybe instead of a fork of the kernel there should be more quality home desktop software written, as opposed to the enterprise applications that dominate linux now

  5. #15

    Re: Fork the linux kernel?

    I've used the -ck patches in Arch, but got no improvement on my hardware. I respect that some people find them more responsive, but a fork to me would be an unnecessary effort.
    Ubuntu user #7247 :: Linux user #409907
    inconsolation.wordpress.com

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Concord NH
    Beans
    22
    Distro
    Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty Fawn

    Re: Fork the linux kernel?

    Quote Originally Posted by BDNiner View Post
    I actually switched to the low latency kernel and overall i feel my computer runs better. It took 3 complete reinstalls before it worked correctly and i don't think that my hardware is unsupported, everything was detected on the live CD and after the install.

    maybe instead of a fork of the kernel there should be more quality home desktop software written, as opposed to the enterprise applications that dominate linux now
    Now that I couldn't agree more with.

    Beau D.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Beans
    917

    Re: Fork the linux kernel?

    I'd spork it!

    I think the kernel is fine the way it is. Even if a fork came around, it probably wouldn't get much support and would be playing catchup with the other kernel.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Malta
    Beans
    4,187
    Distro
    Ubuntu 7.10 Gutsy Gibbon

    Re: Fork the linux kernel?

    I also think many apps should be streamlined somewhat. Firefox, Open Office, the entire Gnome and KDE desktops, Eclipse, Beagle, are just a few of what I have in mind. If the apps are not written properly, then the OS isn't at fault.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Beans
    917

    Re: Fork the linux kernel?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Illidan View Post
    I also think many apps should be streamlined somewhat. Firefox, Open Office, the entire Gnome and KDE desktops, Eclipse, Beagle, are just a few of what I have in mind. If the apps are not written properly, then the OS isn't at fault.
    Sure. That's why there's Opera, Abiword/Gnumeric, XFCE, Geany, & find.

    Or better yet: lynx/links/elinks, groff, frame buffer console, and vi/emacs.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Beans
    39

    Re: Fork the linux kernel?

    This is a storm in a teacup. If anything, the current performance issues are due to the size of the software that runs on top of the kernel (GNOME, KDE, etc.). I really don't see where people are claiming that the desktop is unresponsive; I've had amarok and gcc taking over the entire CPU time and time again and neither movies nor audio stuttered. If that happens to you you can blame the most likely unoptimizes graphics or audio drivers; worst case de disk I/O scheduler might be to blame.

    But c'mon, even with the O(1) scheduler it handles loads much better than any other OS I've seen. At least I can have amarok and konqueror go wild without having to reboot, unlike Windows, where you can get your entire system locked up because Explorer.exe's decided time out on failed I/O next year.

    GTK, QT, X.Org and pals are much more likely to blame for performance. Besides, like it's been said, the difference between a server load and a desktop load is quite minimal nowadays, and frankly a masive kernel quagmire for 2% performance increase is simply not worth it. If it is to you, run Gentoo.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •