Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On 15 Jan 2024 20:20:52 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:

The Linux distros all have the same kernel. The BSD variants do not.

Why can’t they agree on a common kernel project? Why do they have to >diverge so much?

Because different people want different things.

Why is there chocolate cake and also angel food cake? Would you prefer a
world where there was only one kind of cake for everyone?

You don’t have to have anything in the kernel you don’t want. Just build >your own, and choose from the vast menu of options for what to include and >what to leave out.

Were I to do this, it wouldn't be Linux either. Which is fine, but you would not be allowed to call it Linux.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 15 Jan 2024 20:20:52 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:

The Linux distros all have the same kernel. The BSD variants do not.

Why can’t they agree on a common kernel project? Why do they have to
diverge so much?

An example of the problems this causes is the WireGuard saga.

80% or maybe even 90% of what is in the Linux kernel is stuff that I
have no need for. Why should I have it on my machine?

You don’t have to have anything in the kernel you don’t want. Just build your own, and choose from the vast menu of options for what to include and
what to leave out.

There are even distros that make this an integral part of their setup.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 15 Jan 2024 22:07:30 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:

Why is there chocolate cake and also angel food cake?

Imagine a world where, if you had one kind of cake, you had to dump all
traces of it from your plate, and your digestive system, befure you could
have the other kind.

Linux lets you have both kinds of cake on your plate (and in your stomach)
at the same time. All the way out to the, ahem, exit point.

How far do you want to go with this digestive analogy?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

You don’t have to have anything in the kernel you don’t want. Just build >>your own, and choose from the vast menu of options for what to include
and what to leave out.

Were I to do this, it wouldn't be Linux either. Which is fine, but you
would not be allowed to call it Linux.

Yet it would, and yes you are. That’s why the options are there. For the extreme case of this, try “Linux From Scratch”.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 16 Jan 2024 00:53:55 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:

LFS has the same unchanged kernel that every Linux system has. Yes, you
can select whatever other stuff in the distribution you might want.

I said before:

You don’t have to have anything in the kernel you don’t want. Just build >>your own, and choose from the vast menu of options for what to include >>andwhat to leave out.

To which your reply was.

Were I to do this, it wouldn't be Linux either. Which is fine, but you
would not be allowed to call it Linux.

As for

...either you don't understand what Linux actually is or you are
trolling.

Pro tip: If you have to start to resort to personal attacks, that’s an admission that your argument has failed.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

You don’t have to have anything in the kernel you don’t want. Just build >>>your own, and choose from the vast menu of options for what to include >>>and what to leave out.

Were I to do this, it wouldn't be Linux either. Which is fine, but you
would not be allowed to call it Linux.

Yet it would, and yes you are. That’s why the options are there. For the >extreme case of this, try “Linux From Scratch”.

Okay, I was thinking you were actually serious, but either you don't
understand what Linux actually is or you are trolling.

LFS has the same unchanged kernel that every Linux system has. Yes, you
can select whatever other stuff in the distribution you might want. But
the kernel is the same. You can compile it yourself from source, you can
use someone else's compiled binary, but it's the same kernel.

Until now I thought you were saying this was a wonderful thing but now you
are denying it is the case. Yeah, I agree that you are likely a troll.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

Pro tip: If you have to start to resort to personal attacks, that’s an >admission that your argument has failed.

Let me explain to you what Linux is, then. Linux is the Linux kernel, as signed off on by Linus T.

You can take the linux kernel and modify it for your own purposes, yes.
Since it's kind of a mess and not really very modular, this turns out to
be a difficult thing to do, but it's a thing that is possible to do.
It's a good bit harder than modifying the BSD kernel.

But once you have done it, it's not Linux any more. It is something else.
You can call it what you want, but you can no longer call it Linux. Not
unless you can get Linus to sign off on your changes.

All of the "lack of fragmentation" that you think is so wonderful about
Linux is exclusively the consequence of this. The fact that one person controls what is and what is not the Linux kernel is why there is just
one Linux kernel family and why there is no fragmentation as there is
with BSD.

This is why your talk about fragmentation and asking why BSD versions
are not all the same makes you look like a troll. Because there is
something very specific going on with Linux that prevents that
fragmentation. Some people like that. Not everybody does.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-01-15, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On 15 Jan 2024 20:20:52 -0000, Scott Dorsey wrote:

The Linux distros all have the same kernel. The BSD variants do not.

Why can?t they agree on a common kernel project? Why do they have to
diverge so much?

An example of the problems this causes is the WireGuard saga.

80% or maybe even 90% of what is in the Linux kernel is stuff that I
have no need for. Why should I have it on my machine?

You don?t have to have anything in the kernel you don?t want. Just build
your own, and choose from the vast menu of options for what to include and what to leave out.

There are even distros that make this an integral part of their setup.

The problem with that is that you need to rebuild the kernel everytime
there is a kernel security update. Hopefully, at least some of that extra functionality Scott is objecting to is in kernel modules that will never
be loaded if he doesn't select them during installation.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-01-15, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

Pro tip: If you have to start to resort to personal attacks, that’s an >>admission that your argument has failed.

Let me explain to you what Linux is, then. Linux is the Linux kernel, as signed off on by Linus T.

Linux is generally regarded to be an entire distribution, with the Linux
kernel as one component. My Android phone runs the Linux kernel, but it
is not Linux.

You can take the linux kernel and modify it for your own purposes, yes.
Since it's kind of a mess and not really very modular, this turns out to
be a difficult thing to do, but it's a thing that is possible to do.
It's a good bit harder than modifying the BSD kernel.

It is _vastly_ more modular than the VMS kernel. Unlike the VMS kernel,
I can add my own filesystems for example, and they will just integrate
into the rest of Linux. In fact, I can add that new filesystem as a kernel module, so I don't even need to touch the Linux source code. Try doing
that on VMS. :-)

But once you have done it, it's not Linux any more. It is something else. You can call it what you want, but you can no longer call it Linux. Not unless you can get Linus to sign off on your changes.

That is misleading. If you modify the Linux scheduler (for example), you
have a point. If you add a new filesystem (for example), then it most
certainly is still Linux.

All of the "lack of fragmentation" that you think is so wonderful about
Linux is exclusively the consequence of this. The fact that one person controls what is and what is not the Linux kernel is why there is just
one Linux kernel family and why there is no fragmentation as there is
with BSD.

This is why your talk about fragmentation and asking why BSD versions
are not all the same makes you look like a troll. Because there is
something very specific going on with Linux that prevents that
fragmentation. Some people like that. Not everybody does.
--scott

Lawrence is coming across as a Linux zealot, who is out of touch in a
number of areas. However, when he is not making some crazy out of touch comments, such as replicating the VMS APIs on Linux work, then he is also making _some_ valid points.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <uo60k6$1f897$1@dont-email.me>,
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> wrote:

On 2024-01-15, Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

Pro tip: If you have to start to resort to personal attacks, that’s an >>>admission that your argument has failed.

Let me explain to you what Linux is, then. Linux is the Linux kernel, as
signed off on by Linus T.

Linux is generally regarded to be an entire distribution, with the Linux >kernel as one component. My Android phone runs the Linux kernel, but it
is not Linux.

This is not really true. Linux is really just the kernel; that
is why people make such a stink about "GNU/Linux" when referring
to Linux distributions (though there are such that don't use the
GNU tools, like Alpine Linux).

You can take the linux kernel and modify it for your own purposes, yes.
Since it's kind of a mess and not really very modular, this turns out to
be a difficult thing to do, but it's a thing that is possible to do.
It's a good bit harder than modifying the BSD kernel.

It is _vastly_ more modular than the VMS kernel. Unlike the VMS kernel,
I can add my own filesystems for example, and they will just integrate
into the rest of Linux. In fact, I can add that new filesystem as a kernel >module, so I don't even need to touch the Linux source code. Try doing
that on VMS. :-)

That may be the case, but the comparison was to the BSD kernel,
not to VMS.

However, the whole supposition on the troll's part ("there's
just one kernel in a thriving ecosystem of distributions! Why
can't those idiots over in the BSD world do THAT?!") is based on
a false assumption. The reality is that big organizations that
use Linux almost always fork the kernel: look at any of the
hyperscalers, or any number of OEMs of consumer electronic
devies, for example. There are 1000s of versions of the "Linux
kernel".

But once you have done it, it's not Linux any more. It is something else. >> You can call it what you want, but you can no longer call it Linux. Not
unless you can get Linus to sign off on your changes.

That is misleading. If you modify the Linux scheduler (for example), you
have a point. If you add a new filesystem (for example), then it most >certainly is still Linux.

I think the point is, if you fork the kernel for whatever reason
(and many times that's not because one _wants_ to but because
one _needs_ to for some reason, such as one can't afford the
time or doesn't have the political capital to get a critical
patch upstreamed, so they end up floating it themselves), then
you've got a system that's Linux-derived, but you're not keeping
up with what "Linux" is in the rest of the world.

That's a huge cost to bear.

All of the "lack of fragmentation" that you think is so wonderful about
Linux is exclusively the consequence of this. The fact that one person
controls what is and what is not the Linux kernel is why there is just
one Linux kernel family and why there is no fragmentation as there is
with BSD.

This is why your talk about fragmentation and asking why BSD versions
are not all the same makes you look like a troll. Because there is
something very specific going on with Linux that prevents that
fragmentation. Some people like that. Not everybody does.

Lawrence is coming across as a Linux zealot, who is out of touch in a
number of areas. However, when he is not making some crazy out of touch >comments, such as replicating the VMS APIs on Linux work, then he is also >making _some_ valid points.

His problem is that he doesn't seem capable of recognizing where
his assumptions break down, so he just repeats the same thing
over and over, regardless of evidence to the contrary. The
Linux ecosystem is actually _enormously_ fragmented; he just
doesn't know about it, so assumes it's not.

- Dan C.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 13:16:29 -0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley wrote:

The problem with that is that you need to rebuild the kernel everytime
there is a kernel security update.

Somebody has to, anyway, for security bugs in the core. Building your own kernel really isn’t that big a deal. And remember, it’s your choice
whether to use an off-the-shelf kernel or not.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 13:33:58 -0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley wrote:

However, when he is not making some crazy out of touch
comments, such as replicating the VMS APIs on Linux work ...

Consider that the entirety of the VMS APIs add up to only a tiny fraction
of the Windows APIs. Yet an emulation layer for Windows (WINE) has been successfully built on Linux, and is actually seeing some production use.

And this was done with only a fraction of the resources available to VSI.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 1/16/2024 4:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 13:33:58 -0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley wrote:

However, when he is not making some crazy out of touch
comments, such as replicating the VMS APIs on Linux work ...

Consider that the entirety of the VMS APIs add up to only a tiny fraction
of the Windows APIs. Yet an emulation layer for Windows (WINE) has been successfully built on Linux, and is actually seeing some production use.

If the expectation is that:

systems running emulated VMS on top of Linux / systems running actual VMS

=

systems running Windows server apps on Wine on Linux / systems running
real Windows Server

then that confirms that there are no business case.

And this was done with only a fraction of the resources available to VSI.

That would be a pretty big fraction.

According to Github then Wine has 873 contributors. Not all active
every year and definitely not full time.

But compared to VSI VMS engineering team (that excludes management,
sales people, compiler engineering teams and other applications
engineering teams) then the fraction must still be like 5/1 or 10/1.

Arne

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <uo74p9$1lkg8$1@dont-email.me>,
Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> wrote:

On 1/16/2024 4:23 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
[snip]

And this was done with only a fraction of the resources available to VSI.

That would be a pretty big fraction.

According to Github then Wine has 873 contributors. Not all active
every year and definitely not full time.

But compared to VSI VMS engineering team (that excludes management,
sales people, compiler engineering teams and other applications
engineering teams) then the fraction must still be like 5/1 or 10/1.

Please don't feed the troll.

- Dan C.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 13:16:29 -0000 (UTC), Simon Clubley wrote:

The problem with that is that you need to rebuild the kernel everytime
there is a kernel security update.

Somebody has to, anyway, for security bugs in the core. Building your own >kernel really isn’t that big a deal. And remember, it’s your choice >whether to use an off-the-shelf kernel or not.

Only ONE person has to. It's not like modern Unix and Linux users have to do
a SYSGEN with every kernel patch or every time a device is added or removed. Modloading is a cool thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)