2.7M lines last year
10K lines added a day.
5K lines deleted per day.
I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next?
At the same time, well, as pointed out, we all use it all the time.
I'm sending this from gmail.
Or you can use Linux by googling these stats :-)
ron
On Sep 21, 2009, at 12:22 PM, ron minnich wrote:
2.7M lines last year
10K lines added a day.
5K lines deleted per day.
At least by what i've seen, a good number of these submits have been
fixing the same area, over and over again. How much of this is
actually good development anyways (i.e
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:22:56AM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> 2.7M lines last year
> 10K lines added a day.
> 5K lines deleted per day.
>
> I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next?
Are there stats indicating where the lines are added? If this is new
hardware (drivers), the acc
> At least by what i've seen, a good number of these submits have been
> fixing the same area, over and over again. How much of this is
> actually good development anyways (i.e. The "does this really belong
> here?" comments).
[...]
> Yup, and it works good! Of corse you can also use BSD by d
On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:02 PM, tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:22:56AM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
2.7M lines last year
10K lines added a day.
5K lines deleted per day.
I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next?
Are there stats indicating where the lines
On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:04 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
At least by what i've seen, a good number of these submits have been
fixing the same area, over and over again. How much of this is
actually good development anyways (i.e. The "does this really belong
here?" comments).
[...]
Yup, and it works
ron minnich wrote:
2.7M lines last year
10K lines added a day.
5K lines deleted per day.
I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next?
At the same time, well, as pointed out, we all use it all the time.
I'm sending this from gmail.
Or you can use Linux by googling these stats :-)
On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Jack Norton wrote:
ron minnich wrote:
2.7M lines last year
10K lines added a day.
5K lines deleted per day.
I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next?
At the same time, well, as pointed out, we all use it all the time.
I'm sending this from gmail
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Kelly wrote:
>
> On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Jack Norton wrote:
>
> ron minnich wrote:
>>
>>> 2.7M lines last year
>>> 10K lines added a day.
>>> 5K lines deleted per day.
>>>
>>> I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next?
>>>
>>> At the
On Sep 21, 2009, at 3:32 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Patrick Kelly
wrote:
On Sep 21, 2009, at 1:41 PM, Jack Norton wrote:
ron minnich wrote:
2.7M lines last year
10K lines added a day.
5K lines deleted per day.
I keep thinking this can't be sustained. Wh
it's on slashdot, it must be true:
"During a roundtable discussion at LinuxCon in Portland, Oregon this
afternoon, moderator and Novell distinguished engineer James Bottomley
asked Tovalds whether Linux kernel features were being released too
fast, before the kernel is stabilized.
Citing an inter
On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:12 PM, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
it's on slashdot, it must be true:
"During a roundtable discussion at LinuxCon in Portland, Oregon this
afternoon, moderator and Novell distinguished engineer James Bottomley
asked Tovalds whether Linux kernel features were being released
> > "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds."
>
> So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make
> things modular.
rob, presotto, ken and phil did not agree with tanenbaum's
ideas about modular kernels.
this was a direct response to ast many yea
uriel keeps a copy of everything:
http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/andy_tanenbaum
>
> this was a direct response to ast many years ago. it was
> hard to dig up when i did so in 2006. perhaps someone
> has a better link:
On Sep 21, 2009, at 10:33 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
"We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said
Torvalds."
So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make
things modular.
rob, presotto, ken and phil did not agree with tanenbaum's
ideas about modular kerne
> We as people don't always agree on a subject. I can't agree completely
> with some of the Bell labs staff on some subjects. C or C++ for
> example, I strongly prefer Ada.
that's cool. i like to do embedded work in object cobol.
- erik
I skipped the panel. Those things are never interesting. I was working
outside and heard lots of laughter however.
ron
Having just read the register article, I'm now doubly glad I wasn't
there I was working on Plan 9 :-)
ron
this was a direct response to ast many years ago. it was
hard to dig up when i did so in 2006. perhaps someone
has a better link:
- Microkernels are the way to go
False unless your only goal is to get papers published.
Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkernel
On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:33 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
"We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said
Torvalds."
So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make
things modular.
rob, presotto, ken and phil did not agree with tanenbaum's
ideas about modular kernels
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:12 PM, andrey mirtchovski
wrote:
> it's on slashdot, it must be true:
>
> "During a roundtable discussion at LinuxCon in Portland, Oregon this
> afternoon, moderator and Novell distinguished engineer James Bottomley
> asked Tovalds whether Linux kernel features were being
> > - Microkernels are the way to go
> >False unless your only goal is to get papers published.
> >Plan 9's kernel is a fraction of the size of any microkernel
> >we know and offers more functionality and comparable
> >or often better performance.
>
> not intendin
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 7:33 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds."
> >
> > So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make
> > things modular.
>
> rob, presotto, ken and phil did not agree with tanenbaum's
> ideas
> Are these systems more complex to reason about though? Probably :-). But
> when you've only got 7 system calls (per the original L4 specifications I've
> read over) you don't really have a lot to debug. Just gotta make sure you
> chose the correct primitives to compose all the software you ne
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2009, at 9:33 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
> "We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds."
>>>
>>> So may be Tanenbaum was right, after all, there's a reason we make
>>> things modular.
>>>
>>
>>
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:17 AM, J.R. Mauro wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 9:12 PM, andrey mirtchovski
> wrote:
> > it's on slashdot, it must be true:
> >
> > "During a roundtable discussion at LinuxCon in Portland, Oregon this
> > afternoon, moderator and Novell distinguished engineer James B
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 7:47 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > Are these systems more complex to reason about though? Probably :-).
> But
> > when you've only got 7 system calls (per the original L4 specifications
> I've
> > read over) you don't really have a lot to debug. Just gotta make sure
> y
On Tue Sep 22 11:06:37 EDT 2009, leim...@gmail.com wrote:
> The argument is that if something is logically separable from a larger
> system, and independently testable, then once you've verified it is correct,
> and that the "glue" is correct that is used to compose a larger system, that
> you can
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:14 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Tue Sep 22 11:06:37 EDT 2009, leim...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The argument is that if something is logically separable from a larger
> > system, and independently testable, then once you've verified it is
> correct,
> > and that the "glue" i
not intending to pour gas on the flames, but there have been a number of
ukernels since that are a fraction of the size of p9 (and less functional,
by design). Some with very good performance.
i'm not sure what "good performance" means. is there enough
functionality in current µkernels to even
> btw, there's even been one ukernel recently that has a formal
> proof of correctness (against its specification and some containment
> properties). Roughly a 10 man-year effort for about 7.5kloc.
> Not something you'd likely be able to do yet against something linux-
> sized.
the other way of l
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:13 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > btw, there's even been one ukernel recently that has a formal
> > proof of correctness (against its specification and some containment
> > properties). Roughly a 10 man-year effort for about 7.5kloc.
> > Not something you'd likely be abl
J.R. Mauro writes:
>Another thing they won't consider is having separate versions for
>high-end servers and PCs. I don't understand why Torvalds thinks Linux
>has to be all things to all people.
the Linux running on a high-end server is probably compiled from
the same (evolving over time) source t
Richard Uhtenwoldt wrote:
J.R. Mauro writes:
Another thing they won't consider is having separate versions for
high-end servers and PCs. I don't understand why Torvalds thinks Linux
has to be all things to all people.
the Linux running on a high-end server is probably compiled from
the
On Sep 22, 2009, at 7:17 AM, J.R. Mauro wrote:
Another thing they won't consider is having separate versions for
high-end servers and PCs. I don't understand why Torvalds thinks Linux
has to be all things to all people.
Back when I cared about linux for servers (not high-end hardware, but
lar
i'm not clear on what all functional correctness entails. can
a functionally correct program suffer from deadlock or livelock?
Yes. It depends on if that property was stated as part of the
specification of what correctness means.
That is definitely something that can be stated and proven.
I'm
i'm not clear on what all functional correctness entails. can
I thought I'd go into a little more detail about what they did since my
last email probably doesnt clear it up very much. They wrote a model of
their operating system in a high level language (Haskell). They then
translated the
On Sep 22, 2009, at 4:47 PM, Jack Norton wrote:
Richard Uhtenwoldt wrote:
J.R. Mauro writes:
Another thing they won't consider is having separate versions for
high-end servers and PCs. I don't understand why Torvalds thinks
Linux
has to be all things to all people.
the Linux running on
> There were no proofs about the behavior of the C compiler or the underlying
> cpu.
In related news, there is a verified Clight compiler out there for
PowerPC machines.
Leroy, X. 2009. Formal verification of a realistic compiler.
Commun. ACM 52, 7 (Jul. 2009), 107-115. DOI=
http://doi.acm.or
On 22/09/2009, at 4:47 PM, Jack Norton wrote:
In the end I don't care what the linux devs do, but they need to
come up with a game plan and either fork (server, desktop linux) or
include it all and try and make everyone happy (the latter will end
in chaos me thinks).
There are several Lin
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Arnold wrote:
> On 22/09/2009, at 4:47 PM, Jack Norton wrote:
>
> In the end I don't care what the linux devs do, but they need to come up
>> with a game plan and either fork (server, desktop linux) or include it all
>> and try and make everyone happy (the l
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Patrick Kelly wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Arnold wrote:
>>
>> On 22/09/2009, at 4:47 PM, Jack Norton wrote:
>>
>>> In the end I don't care what the linux devs do, but they need to come up
>>> with a game plan and either fork (server, deskt
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 10:21:35AM -0400, Patrick Kelly wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:55 PM, David Arnold wrote:
>
> > On 22/09/2009, at 4:47 PM, Jack Norton wrote:
> >
> > In the end I don't care what the linux devs do, but they need to come up
> >> with a game plan and either fork (server,
> wrong door, sir.
> search for linux in the door with the penguin.
> Thanks
they no longer have a door. they have a two-door interlock
system. you can enter the space any time you'd like, but you
may never leave. that's the hotel linux for ya.
- erik
-Original Message-
From: 9fans-boun...@9fans.net [mailto:9fans-boun...@9fans.net] On Behalf Of
Iruata Souza
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:56 AM
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
Subject: Re: [9fans] linux stats in last year from linuxcon
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:21 AM
On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 19:02:02 +0200
tlaro...@polynum.com wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 09:22:56AM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
> > 2.7M lines last year
> > 10K lines added a day.
> > 5K lines deleted per day.
> >
> > I keep thinking this can't be sustained. What happens next?
>
> Are there stats
46 matches
Mail list logo
