Greg Kroah Hartman on the Linux Kernel
Google Tech Talks
June, 5 2008
ABSTRACT
The Linux Kernel, who is developing it, how they are doing it,
and why you should care.
This talk describes the rate of development for the Linux
kernel, and how the development model is set up to handle such a
large and diverse developer population and huge rate of change.
It will detail who is doing the work, and what companies, if
any, are sponsering it. Finally, it will go into why companies
like Google, and any other that uses or depends on Linux, should
care about this development. Lots of numbers and pretty graphs
will be shown to keep the audience awake.
Speaker: Greg Kroah Hartman
Greg Kroah-Hartman is a Linux kernel maintainer for the USB,
driver core, sysfs, and debugfs portions of the kernel as well
as being one half of the -stable kernel release team. He
currently works for Novell as a Fellow doing various kernel
related things and has written a few books from O’Reilly about
Linux development in the past.
Tags: Hartman, Linux, Linux Development
January 15th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Go Linux!Billy gays should care about our power.When Linux will get rid of M$`s fake OS`es billy will run away without clothes by toilet.Run Billy,RUN!
January 16th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Could you please annotate the off-screen questions and comments
January 18th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Go Andrew!! lol
January 19th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Wow 49min : )
January 22nd, 2009 at 6:08 am
This guy needs a beer before trying to give a talk.
How to not give a presentation!
Quit moving around.
Quit waving your hands, you’re not steve jobs.
Quit rambling.
Write out the presentation.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:15 am
wow, that guy that looks like kevin smith looks like a real ****..
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Cut off IBM , mean IBM is putting alot of Biometrics in the Code and that is a Big Problem
January 26th, 2009 at 12:21 am
I have no idea. All I know is that it allways happens when the window border is moving extensively. And by window border, I mean it alone. For example, when you minimize a window, you should see a black one. With xvidcap, when you select the area, the frame is red. So if I resize that red thing quickly or if it exceeds a certain height/width, the sys freezes. Next time I’ll look at the logs
January 27th, 2009 at 6:19 am
Heh, strange. Isn’t there any error file in xorg? I haven’t had any GUI related crashes so I haven’t poked around there so much.
Incorporating everything in the kernel might be fast, but it’s on the expense of stability and security, something I don’t like.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:55 am
Actually, on GNU/Linux, my system freezes when my display driver fails (BSD too). Why? I don’t know. I should be able to get tty, but I don’t. BSOD won’t go from win, since they incorporate display GUI in kernel (it is fast tho).
But if you go to wiki, you’ll get Win NT kernel is hybrid. That’s meaningless. Hybrid means nothing. That’s probably 90% monolithic & 10% micro-like.
Everything is “hybrid”. But I was talking about real hybrids. Linux is closer, but I meant those more micro-like ones.
January 31st, 2009 at 5:11 pm
I don’t have too much knowledge of the Windows core, but I think it’s an extreme example of a monolithic kernel (Even IE is integrated in the kernel).
BSOD’s are caused by (usually) bugs in device drivers, whereas in Linux and *BSD, only the drivers fail, not the entire system.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:33 am
I admit, Linux does its job very well in regards its architecture. To tell you the truth, it might be me reading some of what Tannenbaum says that got me thinking this way. I do see the logic in hybrid kernels*, especially the new designs. But projects fail… I don’t like monopoly, and I think the microkernel architecture if planned carefully can make a _sort of_ an ultimate OS that may be modded in almost any imaginable way.
*if Windows’ core could be called one, then Linux certainly is one
February 4th, 2009 at 5:08 am
I agree that Linux is sort of the “monopoly” in the open source world, other projects doesn’t get as much attention as Linux.
I recon you have tried a microkernel OS, if so, is it good? As I understand it, multitasking is a bit more “difficult” (In the terms of speed and stability).
Though I really like the idea that each device driver isn’t included in the kernel itself, Linux and *BSD has traces of that (Graphic cards for instance).
February 4th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
You were the one who replied to me. It is courteous to reply with a response.
February 7th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Leave me alone!!!
February 9th, 2009 at 8:17 am
GTFO means nothing to me. i tend to use proper english. not all that text nonsense.
February 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
It’s actually a command.
February 10th, 2009 at 5:25 am
wow, how very civilized of you. thank you for your opinion.
February 11th, 2009 at 3:54 am
bexy you stupid bitch, GTFO!
February 13th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
wow i wish i understood all this rubbish
February 14th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Wah. Nevermind. I still think microkernels are superior, and that it’s easier to code (once the microkernel is done) specific services with compatible message passing, then extracting + (re)coding + reintegrating modules in a monolithic kernel.
Even more so with stripping the kernel & modding it (eg for an embedded stuff).
February 15th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
I already knew all about it. The pieces you see are just the small, processor-specific pieces of code that are needed to boot a particular machine. You would have to create the exact same thing for a microkernel.
February 17th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Now you’re getting it.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Which in turn contain the coding necessary to boot a specific processor.
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:38 am
which in turn have subfolders such as boot (notice boot in root directory), etc…