GNU + Linux = broken development model [LWN.net]

GNU + Linux = broken development model

Posted Jul 29, 2009 20:30 UTC (Wed) by nevyn (subscriber, #33129)
In reply to: GNU + Linux = broken development model by mheily
Parent article: A tempest in a tty pot

This illustrates why dividing the kernel and the userland into two totally separate projects is a broken development model that doesn't scale. I'm not trying to start a flamewar by bringing up BSD, but I've always thought that their approach of releasing a complete operating system allows you to make major infrastructure improvements that cross the boundary between kernel and userland.

Ahh, how right you are ... which is why Linux development hasn't scaled as well as *BSD development. Also I know a bunch of Linux customers who would be much happier to be told to just "get their custom enterprise apps. into the main Linux git repo." so that the APIs in the kernel can be broken more often.

*shakes head and wakes up* ... ooohh, bad nightmare there for a minute.

If one of the BSDs wanted to fix their TTY code, they would coordinate the changes in the kernel, core userland, and ports. This allows you to change existing bad behavior with minimal risk of breakage

Last time I checked emacs and kde weren't in BSD.

Existing distributions would be free to fork this implementation and add their own differentiating features, like Ubuntu forks Debian every six months and polishes it up for desktop users.

Except this "description" of Ubuntu vs. Debian is not based on reality either. Zero for three, doing well today little troll.

(Log in to post comments)

Please

Posted Jul 29, 2009 20:42 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

One might well disagree with the opinions expressed in the parent post, but it was not a troll. Please, let's try to avoid that kind of language and focus on the real issues, OK?

Please

Posted Jul 30, 2009 5:17 UTC (Thu) by chad.netzer (✭ supporter ✭, #4257) [Link]

"GNU + Linux = broken development model". It should be no surprise that LWN readers (including many Linux developers) won't take kindly to their style of development being called "broken". That's a statement that requires some compelling evidence to back up; one is essentially saying Linux has progressed so far *in spite of* such a broken model.

Please

Posted Aug 7, 2009 14:14 UTC (Fri) by efexis (guest, #26355) [Link]

The wrongness of one doesn't increase the rightness of another, and the politeness of another isn't a prerequisite for the politeness of oneself. I must say I rather see a single inpolite message in a thread than many, and many others here agree, which is why we prefer for people not to sink to squabble. I think it's fair enough to point that out. There's always LKML and slashdot for flamefests :-)

Please

Posted Aug 12, 2009 4:25 UTC (Wed) by obi (guest, #5784) [Link]

I wish I could highlight your post; it cheers me up knowing at least some people understand this point. ;-)

Please

Posted Jul 31, 2009 5:21 UTC (Fri) by Los__D (guest, #15263) [Link]

Did you look at the title?