Novell: Linux desktop set to take off

TalkBack 4 of 148:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

yep binary compatability is a problem

I've never understood why the kernel changed in such a way that binary drivers were incompatible. I think this is a lousy way to develop a kernel.
Overall I've come to think the way Linux kernel development is run is crappy.

It's true that a win95/98 driver won't work with XP, and that NT/2000/XP drivers don't always work on all platforms, but compared to Linux, the stability of the ABI for driver development seems to be magically good in relative terms, which just means the ABI for Linux drivers isn't managed and is therefore crap.

Apart from that, I'm also not clear on why so much change to glibc etc has been necessary, causing the same effect. And the same with XWindows.
I can't see why the changes require the ABI to change so much, for such a little change in functionality.
It also seems to me that Gnome and KDE are way too fat.
There was a time when I really liked linux, around Slackware 3.3 time, when it was pretty stable, and distros like Slackware were rock solid and light against win95. But that was ten years ago.

1. I'm not sure the linux filesystem standard makes a lot of sense anymore (/usr/bin etc).
{why not /System/HardwareConfiguration or /Applications or /UserData}.

2. Lilo and Grub are impossible to use (try making a bootable flash card... not easy).

3. The whole way the library system works in Linuxen doesn't seem to be very effective.
(think versions of libraries and compatability).

4. Shell scripting language and configuration files (/etc) would be better based around xml IMHO.

5. Linux kernel normally is quite slow loading, hibernation and bootsplash are impossible to add (while maintaining sanity), and configuration is impossibly complex. Which brings us to smegging devfs and all that stuff. Urrggghhh.

6. rc.S etc - dump and use xml shell script instead (see 4): the hierarchical structure of data in many config files is pretty impossible to grok, you might have a chance with xml.. (depends on the DTD/Schema designer - some people make everything overcomplex).

7. It seems there is far too much reliance on shell scripting when tools should be factored into a library and executable. (eg: fdisk, etc etc).
Methods in binary files should be more exposed like in JavaBeans or COM/ActiveX.
This requires a sea change in attitude by the way.

8. By the way, where are the unit tests for the kernel? Parameterised testing and so on?
Development is pretty amateur without this stuff going on.

9. As wonderful as apt-get is, it cannot compare with a system built to a given build state. There appear to be too few initiatives to get to a build state based system for Linux. This negatively impacts it's use in business. (especially when ABIs change all the time).

Posted by: stevey_d   Posted on: 04/10/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Open Standards Technologies Provide the Ingredients for Delivering Security Across the Papa Gino's Enterprise Dell Papa Gino's Holdings Corporation founded by the entrepreneur operates one ... Download Now
• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now