Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Linus is right on about microkernels (Score 1) 480

... The irony is that argument itself is more-or-less meaningless.
Much like the CISC vs. RISC argument, in the end, the hybrid design took the gold medal.
Even the so-called-monolithic Linux, uses fuse, libusb and libpcap to develop low-level user-land applications. ... And then there virtulization :)

- Gilboa

Comment Re:Linus is right on about microkernels (Score 1) 480

As we are using moronic (and intelligence insulting) examples, please let me summarize the argument is just-as-insulting mode:
Me: In *my* use-case, micro-kernel's main feature (recoverability) is useless. Plus, there's the issue of performance and added complexity which renders the basic idea of Micro-kernel design irrelevant.
You: Micro-kernel is shiny! It makes your system "understandable", "well structured" and "reusable"!
Me: No it won't. <insert long explanation why a micro-kernel DPI will suck when layered and suck just as bad when not layered>.
You Repeat previous argument + hint at me being an idiot.
Me: Try to end the argument pointing out that while your mind boggling nice-and-shiny theories amaze me, I rather go peel an apple.
You: Strongly hint that I'm an idiot.
Me: *Singing loudly* I really like peeled apples! *Singing loudly*.

- Gilboa

Comment Re:Linus is right on about microkernels (Score 1) 480

No offense but this argument remains the following argument from a movie called Idiocracy:
"But Brawndo got what plants crave, its got electrolytes"
"What are electrolytes? Do you even now?
"Its what they use to make Brawndo!"
"Why they use it to make Brawndo?"
"Because Brawndo has electrolytes..."

Let leave it at that...

- Gilboa

Comment Re:Linus is right on about microkernels (Score 1) 480

In short, you more or less ignored my example and went with yet another theoretical explanation why micro-kernel is the kernel design to rule them all.
In reality, you didn't really try to debunk my previous claims: E.g. Sure, you can put the DPI + network cards in the same "protection domain" (much like in, err, a monolithic kernel...), but this more-or-less means that any crash, in any of the above-mentioned components (Network drivers, DPI, memory management) will result in what essentially amounts to a full reboot - let alone the fact that I've yet to see a well-marshaled IPC that's capable of pushing GBps of data without making the CPU bleed from the ears.

In essence, you post doesn't include any evidence that a micro-kernel will make my DPI software [i]understandable[/i], [i]well structured[/i] - let alone [i]recoverable[/i]. (See my previous post)

Beyond that, "understandable"? "well structured"? "reusable"? what exactly does it has to do with monolithic vs. micro-kernel? A monolithic kernel can be "well structured" and "well documented" and use a lot of "reusable components" while a micro-kernel can be badly structured w/ zero documentation and have the same functionality implemented differently in 1,000 different modules.

- Gilboa

Comment Re:Linus is right on about microkernels (Score 1) 480

Truth be told, if one of your drivers crashes, there's little hope of maintaining a useful system and you'll likely want to reboot anyway.

Except this isn't true of microkernel systems like Minix. And this is the point: microkernels enforce protection boundaries between components so failure and recovery become feasible. That simply isn't possible in a monolithic kernel without resorting to proof-carrying code of some sort.

(I'm a in-kernel DPI developer by trade; I'll stick to what I know)
Lets assume you need to develop an application firewall that needs to handle multiple 10GbE links.

In Linux, life is simple, you stuff a huge blob of code into the kernel, replacing the normal stack; sure, development is (more) difficult and debugging can exponentially increase your gray hair count by a number of factors, but it in the end, you get an skb, you read it, modify it, and dump it (or not) to the target network device. End-of-story.

In the Micro-kernel world, things are far more complicated.
As you put the network device and DPI software in separate user-spaces, you'll require an in-kernel mmap-like (?) message passing system in-order to connect the network driver(s) to the DPI software (and back) w/ complex memory management and device ring buffer control.
Lets assume that this interface has near-zero-performance penalty (and I *greatly* doubt it) and concentrate on the chances of recovering from a crash:
If a network device dies, it may or may not leave the *hardware* in recoverable state. Lets write this as 50% chance of recovery.
If the DPI software dies, you lose all the session and node information, which more-or-less amounts to a full reboot. Lets write this as 0% of chance recovery.
Now, if the fancy mmap interface dies... Well, you got the idea.

In short, at best, you have a better chance of recovering from a network device crash, which, in-case you ever looked at Ethernet driver code, is a ***very*** rare event - all of it at the price of a huge performance hit and packet flow that more-or-less impossible to debug.

- Gilboa

Comment Re:The BSD community just doesn't accept stupidity (Score 1) 480

1. Linux has a *full* "generic" 802.11 stack.
2. Licensing issues will most likely prevent you from copying "BSD" parts into Linux, unless the original author allowed for dual GPL / BSD licensing (and I doubt it)

Could you please list a number of card that have been ported from FreeBSD w/ parts of the FreeBSD's 802.11 stack?

- Gilboa

Comment Re:Compared to Intel? (Score 2, Interesting) 189

While I do agree that AMD is *well* behind Intel's latest and greatest in the 1P / desktop world, I fail to see how you could make such bold statement, unless you have had the chance to compare and AMD 4S machine to Intel 4S machine (say, Opteron 62xx based HP DL585G7 vs. Xeon 75xx/E7 based HP DL580G7).

In my experience (and I venture and guess that is just as good as yours, if not better) the picture is far from being black-and-white and greatly (!!!) depends on the application that is being tested. The pictures becomes even more complex, once you factor in the Xeon E7 excessive price. ... So I ask again, have you had any experience in benchmarking the Opteron 6200 or are you simply making things up as you go along?

- Gilboa

Comment Re:This is considered surprising? (Score 2) 229

Let me start by pointing out that "nationalization of certain industries" goes against one of the basic principles of freedom (One that was actually acknowledged as such by the U.N.) - the right ownership of private property. I should also point out (at the risk of triggering the Godwin's Law) that the man-kind's worst totalitarian regimes (e.g. Nazi Germany, Lenin/Stalin's USSR) started by the nationalization of industry, land and private assets in the name of the "common people" as a first step in their attempt to re-model the society to match their perfect image (does who did not match their view ended up as slave laborers in Siberia or executed in Auschwitz)
The reason I took the time to point this out is simple: You *assume* that your views are moderate and that are shared by 99% of the western world working class, while in-fact, you'd be amazed at how many people will consider these views to be radical and dangerous - and I'm not talking extremely wealthy people who "rather maintain the current order".

Beyond that. your attempt to compare the brokenness of the Democratic system (and I don't doubt this fact) to the (very-short) life of a woman that somehow got blamed for infidelity or blamed for tarnishing the family-honor in Iran, Afghanistan or in the Gaza strip (let alone basic human rights, religious rights, etc) is amazing at best. I could only wonder how you view WWII and/or the cold war. (though I can easily guess).

- Gilboa

Comment Re:Firefox 6??? (Score 1) 207

The thing about Chrome is that it updates well. I've never had my download history corrupted causing a crash of Chrome every time I download a file (happens with EVERY Firefox update.) I don't get prompted if I want to kill the browser immediately to update with Chrome, it does it silently. I don't get a 'YOU JUST UPDATED CHECK OUT ALL THE COOL NEW FEATURES!!!!' tab popping open every time Chrome updates. I don't get a 'You just updated, gotta check your plugins -- oh no, none of them are compatible!' window with every Chrome update. Basically, it doesn't matter how often Chrome updates, because you don't notice that it even does it. With Firefox, it's extremely noticeable. Not that I really mind ALL of these things, it would be somewhat nice to get a single 'oh hey, BTW, I just updated myself' notice, but Firefox started doing short release cycles before they managed to make it easy and seamless to upgrade.

You can't joke about a short release cycle if you never notice there's even been a new release.

I must admit that -my- experience (anecdotal, just as yours) is the exact opposite of what you are seeing.
I -never- had history/bookmark/etc corruption due to version upgrade on Firefox, while my experience with Chrome is the exact opposite (Addons no longer working; crashes; etc). I would seriously consider switching distribution to one that's **apparently** more competent in packaging Firefox...
As for the part about having the "new version" tab, I can't really get the point: would it make it any easier on your eyes if the version was 3.8 instead of 6? (Though I would agree that Firefox devs should do their best to help addons developers write version-free addons)

Much like the Linux kernel version issue, users seem to make far, far, far, far, far (x10000) too much fuss about mere version numbers.
Version numbers are meaningless, get over it! (Did Microsoft really release 1996 NT versions/builds between NT 4.0 and Windows 2000?)

- Gilboa

Comment Re:Firefox 6??? (Score 1) 207

[RANT="Sorry for being blunt, but the continuous stream of stupid Firefox/Linux kernel version jokes/rants is *really* getting on my nerves".]
As far as I remember, chrome uses a somewhat shorter six week [1] release schedule. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Now given the fact the in one of you previous post, you said: "... I'd still be fine with it, but I'd probably be migrating entirely to Chrome soon" [2], I'm left to wonder if you plan to make the same tedious jokes about chrome...[/RANT]

[2] (Actually took the time to look it up)

Comment Re:Some of us work in IT. We aren't students like (Score 1) 209


When you manage 80K desktops (or 100s of servers, something that I have experience in), you buy a site license for RHEL/SLES/etc, keeping 99.9% of the distribution intact changing only packages that you really-really-really-really-really need changed;
You then keep using the old really until you really-really-really-really have to upgrade.
I doubt that you grasp how many of my clients/colleges still use RHEL 4.x (!!!!) for both application desktops and servers...

By the time RHEL and SLES release 3.x based distributions, Linux 3.0 will be a memory of the past.
(I would imagine that RHEL 6.2 will include a new version of FF as "technology preview" but will keep FF 3.6.x as the main browser)

- Gilboa

Comment Re:Holding back? (Score 3, Insightful) 460

Sounds like everything you could do with JACK years ago. Pulseaudio was written because... well... there is no good reason for pulseaudio to be written in the first place. Lennart simply didn't like JACK, or ESound, or aRts, or any of the other existing sound servers. It's the age old open source dilemma of rewriting from scratch what could otherwise be fixed in the existing systems..


I can only speak from my own personal experience, but at least in my case, ESD and Arts never really worked when trying combined non-native applications (E.g. KDE under GNOME or vice versa, let alone running OSS games/flash/etc under both) and as for JACK, well, tried it a couple of times, never really worked for me, dropped it.
Pulse marked the first time both me and the people around me can reliably mix multiple streams from different applications while getting expected results. (E.g. Mixing Amarok, skype, qemu running Windows VM w/ audio and a native Linux games that uses OSS)

Granted, both me and my friends/coworkers use Fedora which doubles as PulseAudio test-bed (which may be the reason to better out-of-the-box experience), but at least for us, PA simply, err, works?

The problem is that it got shoveled down the rest of our throats long before it was ready for public consumption, and without any real pressing need.

I fully agree, even though I understand Lennart's reasons for doing it (AKA KDE 4.0 release limbo).
Heck, I used to automatically remove PA as the first post install phase up-until Fedora ~8-9.

As I see it, PA had a rotten beginning and has improved tremendously since then but much like KDE 4.x, it still suffers from the bad reputation that trails it since the initial troubled release.

The irony is that a lot of people here praise Alsa... anyone that's old enough to remember the first years after the move from OSS to Alsa would easily remember that Alsa attracted more-or-less the same hateful reaction that PA now draws. ... One can only wonder what will be said on GNOME 3 and KDE 4 when GNOME 4 and KDE 5.0 will be released :)

- Gilboa

Slashdot Top Deals

A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems. -- P. Erdos