PDA

View Full Version : If Ubuntu released it's own OS kernel would you use it?



Madspyman
March 4th, 2010, 05:55 PM
Just curious.

steindor2
March 4th, 2010, 05:57 PM
i'd just use the default

RiceMonster
March 4th, 2010, 05:58 PM
No. It would never be able to catch up to Linux in any area.

oedipuss
March 4th, 2010, 06:01 PM
#3, provided by 'free' you mean open source, gpl etc, not just gratis.

Madspyman
March 4th, 2010, 06:02 PM
#3, provided by 'free' you mean open source, gpl etc, not just gratis.

Yeah, I wrote his fast trying to get the poll done before people started commenting.

DeadSuperHero
March 4th, 2010, 06:09 PM
If it forked off an already existing kernel, maybe.

Actually, a Solaris or FreeBSD-powered Ubuntu would be kind of interesting.

But ultimately it's always used a Linux kernel and been a Linux platform, so I dunno.

Simian Man
March 4th, 2010, 06:12 PM
That just doesn't make any sense. Ubuntu barely develops anything on its own, and you think it could create an entire kernel? It took them four years to make a new Gtk theme!

ukripper
March 4th, 2010, 06:13 PM
No!!

Amount of testing and collaboration Linux kernel goes through, it would be insane for me to choose alternate kernel.

fatcrab
March 4th, 2010, 06:16 PM
Sure,why not ? Cant be any worse off.

Tibuda
March 4th, 2010, 06:20 PM
If it forked off an already existing kernel, maybe.

Actually, a Solaris or FreeBSD-powered Ubuntu would be kind of interesting.

But ultimately it's always used a Linux kernel and been a Linux platform, so I dunno.

Debian can be used with a FreeBSD kernel, but GNU userland. It would be possible for Ubuntu too, as it is based on Debian.

Madspyman
March 4th, 2010, 06:20 PM
That just doesn't make any sense. Ubuntu barely develops anything on its own, and you think it could create an entire kernel? It took them four years to make a new Gtk theme!

True, point taken about gtk, this is just a hypothetical. I voted Linux regardless.

forrestcupp
March 4th, 2010, 07:11 PM
No. It would never be able to catch up to Linux in any area.

+1

Even if it could be as mature as Linux, I am more committed to Linux than I am to Ubuntu or GNU or anything else related.

I am pretty committed to Ubuntu as a Linux distro, though.

Madspyman
March 4th, 2010, 07:15 PM
+1

Even if it could be as mature as Linux, I am more committed to Linux than I am to Ubuntu or GNU or anything else related.

I am pretty committed to Ubuntu as a Linux distro, though.

Agreed.

Shpongle
March 4th, 2010, 07:50 PM
That just doesn't make any sense. Ubuntu barely develops anything on its own, and you think it could create an entire kernel? It took them four years to make a new Gtk theme!

:lolflag:

wojox
March 4th, 2010, 07:56 PM
Why reinvent the wheel?

DeadSuperHero
March 4th, 2010, 08:02 PM
Why reinvent the wheel?

Because, the wheel is obsolete. We need conveyor belts for roads.

The roads must roll!

NightwishFan
March 4th, 2010, 08:04 PM
No, that would be too far a fork. Unless of course, Linux would lose support and something like BSD would rise. I believe I would use Debian, which already is working on alternate kernels, as was said. Go GNU HURD! :D

mickie.kext
March 4th, 2010, 08:11 PM
Linux rocks and Hurd has nice name.

All else is crap. So if Ubuntu makes new kernel I will burn my computer with Ubuntu in it.

PS: Sorry but I really cant be serious with thread like this:lolflag:. I think that Canonical know better than to throw money on developing new kernel.

doas777
March 4th, 2010, 08:15 PM
not entirely certain if this is what you are asking, but cannonical does in fact build their own kernel, divergent from the mainline. they add backports or their own patches and drivers.
I'm told that the kernel devs at the linux foundation won't take bugs against the ubuntu-deployed kernel unless you can prove the same issue with the vanilla mainline.

you can get mainline kernels here:
http://kernel.ubuntu.com/~kernel-ppa/mainline/ (http://kernel.ubuntu.com/%7Ekernel-ppa/mainline/)

info on the ubuntu kernel team:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/KernelTeam

I attended a presentation at linuxfest last year where pete graner explained it all.

swoll1980
March 4th, 2010, 08:26 PM
That just doesn't make any sense. Ubuntu barely develops anything on its own

Source?

mickie.kext
March 4th, 2010, 08:26 PM
I attended a presentation at linuxfest last year where pete graner explained it all.

Did he tell why they do not push those patches back to mainline? Is there videos from linuxfest on youtube (like there is videos from Linuxcon)? I would love to see :KS

doas777
March 4th, 2010, 08:44 PM
Did he tell why they do not push those patches back to mainline? Is there videos from linuxfest on youtube (like there is videos from Linuxcon)? I would love to see :KS

well I think my fest is too small an event to warrent that kind of coverage, but I'll look around.

I got the impression that the main reason that they don't push them upstream, is that they are not wanted. additionally it makes it harder for them to stage a release or upgrade, because they'd have to wait for approval/inclusion (and perhaps even fight over it), before getting the feature released. also many of the additional drivers are pulled from the unstable kernel, and they are just tired of waiting for it to be included in the stable, so there is nothing to push, except test results.

Edit: here is the audio from the same talk at another convention. couldn't find video
http://www.southeastlinuxfest.org/node/16
http://blog.redvoodoo.org/2009/09/atlanta-linuxfest-day-after.html

mickie.kext
March 4th, 2010, 09:02 PM
Thanks for audio, listening right now. If patches are from staging tree or from -next tree, they will go to mainline anyway... eventually.

MaxIBoy
March 4th, 2010, 09:50 PM
Haven't read this thread yet, so maybe someone else said it, but Ubuntu does put out its own kernel. All distros make some modifications or customizations to the kernel (although I often compile and use vanilla or -ck kernels without any problems.)

Madspyman
March 4th, 2010, 09:59 PM
Haven't read this thread yet, so maybe someone else said it, but Ubuntu does put out its own kernel. All distros make some modifications or customizations to the kernel (although I often compile and use vanilla or -ck kernels without any problems.)

It's been mentioned before, it's still a Linux kernel. Happy they care so much about the keeping it up to date.

cariboo
March 4th, 2010, 11:15 PM
I'd really like to know where this rumor comes from, I saw something about Ubuntu changing the menu selections in grub2 form a kernel number to something about Ubuntu Powered, how does that equate to a different kernel?

Madspyman
March 4th, 2010, 11:38 PM
I'd really like to know where this rumor comes from, I saw something about Ubuntu changing the menu selections in grub2 form a kernel number to something about Ubuntu Powered, how does that equate to a different kernel?

Grub has Ubuntu listed as "Ubuntu, with Linux" this suggests Ubuntu can exist w/o Linux. I'm a Linux fan but I also love Ubuntu.

I just wanted to see which user cared (like myself) about Ubuntu being Linux based, and who cared about Ubuntu regardless of what makes it run.

I enjoy the security that's associated with a Linux. I'd be hesitant to use Ubuntu if Linux wasn't involved, I was just wondering what everybody else thought.

BuffaloX
March 4th, 2010, 11:43 PM
Source?

You can't post sources to nothing...

Burden of proof is on the "other" side.

MaxIBoy
March 4th, 2010, 11:49 PM
Well, with a lot of work, you can get an Ubuntu-like userspace on other kernels. In theory, any Unix like kernel can host the Ubuntu userspace with varying degrees of difficulty.

Debian is available for the Hurd and FreeBSD kernels, so an Ubuntu/kFreeBSD or Ubuntu GNU/Hurd could be based on that work. There are also a few existing OSs that use an Ubuntu userspace with a different kernel, notably Nexenta (http://www.nexenta.org/), which is Ubuntu with the OpenSolaris kernel. Heck, there is even an Ubuntu-based distro (http://www.andlinux.org/) that runs on top of Windows using colinux (http://www.colinux.org/).

However, I think it would be pointless and stupid for Canonical to develop an in-house all-new kernel and I would probably not use it if they did.

swoll1980
March 4th, 2010, 11:50 PM
You can't post sources to nothing...

Burden of proof is on the "other" side.

Sorry. Don't understand.

NightwishFan
March 4th, 2010, 11:56 PM
As we said, Debian can run on multiple kernels. I believe it is considered a "Debian" operating system in any case.

BuffaloX
March 5th, 2010, 12:45 AM
Sorry. Don't understand.

The quoted statement was: "Ubuntu barely develops anything."
You asked for: "Source."

But you can't give sources to nothing as in no development.

You can show actual development if it exists.
So the burden of proof is logically to show what development Ubuntu actually has done, if you want to dispute the original statement.

swoll1980
March 5th, 2010, 12:50 AM
The quoted statement was: "Ubuntu barely develops anything."
You asked for: "Source."

But you can't give sources to nothing as in no development.

You can show actual development if it exists.
So the burden of proof is logically to show what development Ubuntu actually has done, if you want to dispute the original statement.

They release a new version every 6 months, does this not require development? I think the fact that I'm using Ubuntu right now discredits that statement.

wojox
March 5th, 2010, 12:56 AM
I guess the OP would have to elaborate on "own kernel". I don't think modifying would constitute as it's own. More tailored to suit.

swoll1980
March 5th, 2010, 12:57 AM
I guess the OP would have to elaborate on "own kernel". I don't think modifying would constitute as it's own. More tailored to suit.

Tell that to Apple.

Madspyman
March 5th, 2010, 01:20 AM
I guess the OP would have to elaborate on "own kernel". I don't think modifying would constitute as it's own. More tailored to suit.

From scratch and not using Linux source code.

Warpnow
March 5th, 2010, 05:02 AM
They release a new version every 6 months, does this not require development? I think the fact that I'm using Ubuntu right now discredits that statement.

I think you misunderstand. I believe what he meant was that they don't program much. Ubuntu is mainly a packaging process, though over the last four or five releases they seem to be adding more custom coded things into the release.

There is a difference between packaging existing code and producing new code. Ubuntu primarily does the former, though they do the latter as well. Ubuntu One is a good example of this.

doorknob60
March 5th, 2010, 07:50 AM
Well, I'd try it, but I have absolutely no issues with the Linux kernel, and unless the Ubuntu new one would offer a significant improvement over the Linux kernel, I'd have no reason to use it. So, the answer is probably no, but of course I'd have to give it a try :P

matthew
March 5th, 2010, 10:36 PM
While Ubuntu has been shown to run on a Solaris kernel, there are no plans whatsoever to move away from using the Linux kernel. This is a rather pointless discussion.

I'm going to close the thread now.