Linux scheduler
I found this interesting and thought I would share.
Linux currently is using CFS (Completely Fair Scheduler)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completely_Fair_Scheduler
Con came out with BFS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_Fuck_Scheduler
BFS was created to improve responsiveness on Linux desktop by providing lower latency. So, you could run multiple applications at same time without them stalling out. BFS could only handle upto 16 logical cores before taking performance hit. CFS works with 4096 logical cores.
http://ck.kolivas.org/patches/bfs/bfs-faq.txt
A comparison of CFS versus BFS:
You should search for "BFS vs. CFS Scheduler Comparison. Taylor Groves, Jeff Knockel, Eric Schulte" because I had trouble posting the link.
Anyways, I believe the 200 line changes were made to scheduler to give similar or better performance to BFS:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2637_video&num=1
Comments
Re: Linux scheduler
The BFS vs CFS scheduler comparison is found here:
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~eschulte/data/bfs-v-cfs_groves-knockel-schulte.pdf
Newer CFS should run as good or better than BFS now!
I found it very interesting that Con had to give a push (with BFS) to get Linux to improve itself. Why it took so long to make this 224 line change makes me really wonder what is going on with Linux.
ie: Con had to release BFS to get someone to improve CFS scheduler and it took just over a year, from BFS getting out, to get this done.
Re: Linux scheduler
The recent suggestion is not in any way equivalent to Con's BFS. Con wanted a different scheduler design, and when Linus didn't accept his proposal (and thereby make him maintainer of the scheduler rather than Ingo) Con basically ragequit, confirming Linus' belief that he was not a good choice of maintainer. As often happens when people ragequit, Con is now back working on Linux.
The "200 line patch" puts processes into separate task control groups based on their virtual terminal. This means that when you create an xterm (which uses a virtual terminal) the programs you run in that xterm can be given different scheduler treatment from those running as batch jobs, without the user needing to do anything extra. Linus apparently liked this change, not least because it's small and easy to understand.
cgroups have existed for a long time in Linux, this patch just provides an intuitive way for them to come into existence and be destroyed without any administration.
Scheduler tweaks are subject to a powerful placebo-like effect. Cyanogen reported that adding BFS to kernels made users report much improved latency - but others have reported the same from removing BFS. Google looked at including BFS in Froyo and concluded that blinded users (ie those who aren't told which they're using) can't tell the difference between then in Android.
Re: Linux scheduler
My first point is that this "200 line patch" came about to combat latency and improve responsiveness of Linux and improves CFS to compete against BFS. Would this change have happened if BFS did not exist? I do not think so. Con motivated Linux developers to change CFS to work better otherwise CFS would have gone unchanged for more years or forever.
My second point is that CFS was first included in kernel 2.6.23 released around October 2007. It took 3 years to make this small change to improve scheduler performance on Linux. Why didn't anyone look into doing this sooner?
"The Linux kernel received a patch for CFS in November 2010 for the 2.6.38 kernel that has made the scheduler fairer for use on desktops and workstations. Developed by Mike Galbraith using ideas suggested by Linus Torvalds the patch is expected to significantly boost multi-tasking performance on most systems in that class."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completely_Fair_Scheduler
Re: Linux scheduler
Yes, this completely unrelated change would likely still have happened without BFS. Obviously I can't make you change your mind but basically your position is as if you'd asserted that without Truman Capote writing "Breakfast at Tiffany's" there never would have been TV SF shows like Star Trek. It's silly, but nothing about it can be proved without rerunning history which is impossible. As a small dose of reality, previous Linux schedulers had never gone unchanged for long periods, and CFS was already being tweaked before Con wrote BFS.
Re: Linux scheduler
I cannot take your word for it. You would have to prove this with public posting on mailing list, forum, etc. showing when the work first began (before or after BFS - with posted date).
Just saying this was being worked on before BFS proves nothing. Just your word. And if this had started before Oct 2009 then this 200 line change took a very long time to get done - over one year.
So, either you're right and Linux developers were slow getting this out or I'm right and it was a response to BFS threat resulting in changing and improving CFS.
Linus also had an issue with Alan Cox:
http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/29/1925224/Alan-Cox-Quits-As-Linux...
I only read Linus' email which accused Alan of introducing a bug into the kernel. So, it goes to show that some Linux developers are pushing bugs into Linux too.
Re: Linux scheduler
You seem not have comprehended my post at all.
Here are two separate things:
1. There is no "BFS threat". It is normal for the Linux scheduler to see tweaks from time to time, and this has happened to CFS over its lifetime as it did to its predecessor. You can easily look for yourself at the history of the files that make up the scheduler and see that it doesn't go years at a time without improvement as you seem to imagine.
2. This patch, the "200 line" patch, is new. Someone only recently had the inspiration to try it. It will make no difference whatsoever for a lot of people, despite the excitable Phoronix user who compared it to a completely different scheduler (BFS). It only matters if you use multiple virtual terminals. It relies on cgroups, which are a feature that did not exist when CFS was originally developed. And let me emphasise this again: It has nothing to do with BFS.
You seem to have imagined a lot of stuff that didn't happen. What I'd suggest is, rather than "reading between the lines" and imagining this big conflict with "threats" you could find out what's really going on. You might even learn something that could be applied to Haiku (Hint: Haiku could do with a decent scheduler).
Re: Linux scheduler
Yes, I have to agree with NoHaikuForMe (never thought I'd write that sentence ;) ) This has nothing to do with BFS, and while I'm not going to take sides when it comes to Linus and Con Kolivas, their spat has nothing to do with this. Furthermore Linux is not aimed as a 'Desktop' OS, unlike Haiku/Beos which is directly aimed at the desktop. This means that in many (majority?) of situations that Linux is used, _throughput_ is the most important factor. For a desktop OS on the other hand, interactivity is paramount. Now, in order to maximize one you have to sacrifice the other. For an os that wears many hats like Linux, this is a delicate balance. For an OS like Haiku that is directly aimed at the desktop it's not really much of an issue.
Re: Linux scheduler
Where is your proof? This is the 2nd time I have asked for you to prove what you say. I gave two possibilities with both having equal chance of being right but you dismissed them. In case 1, this patch was made before BFS showing it takes Linux developers lots of time to make a small patch (over one year). In case 2, it was made in response to BFS to improve latency. Meaning BFS had to push a developer to create this patch in the first place and only exists because of BFS. I guess this paints Linux badly and why it hit a nerve with you!
Since you feel so confident then back it up. Where are the mailing list posts? Where are the forum posts? Where are the commit logs? That's right, you can't provide them because maybe you're in the wrong and don't want anyone to know.
Hmmmmm, you are just good at yapping on and on.
2nd, BFS was meant to reduce latency and improve responsiveness for multi-tasking. This patch does the *EXACT SAME THING FOR CFS*. I highly doubt this to be a coincidence.
3rd, if CFS was in the works to get this performance patch first then why did Con waste his time developing BFS? Only makes sense if CFS lacked responsiveness, with no immediate patch, when BFS was being developed. We call this using logic and reasoning.
Apparently you are super biased towards Linux and only can see your version of events. Any negativity for Linux and you start flipping out. One of my cases is right and show a big problem with Linux development which some Linux supporters would rather hide or ignore.
"And let me emphasise this again: It has nothing to do with BFS."
Show me a post from the developer of the patch (Mike Galbraith) to prove this was being developed before BFS release!!!
Re: Linux scheduler
Linux is for desktop + server markets so not sure where you get your info from Rox. Who do you think all those distros are for? Like Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, etc.
Linux was having a responsiveness issue for awhile it seems:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODQ3Mw
I am happy to see these issues being fixed but makes you wonder what is going on with Linux development to happen so slowly. All those devs and still takes time to get bugs fixed and improve performance.
Re: Linux scheduler
I gave two possibilities with both having equal chance of being right but you dismissed them.
You are offering a false dichotomy. A false dichotomy occurs when the arguer excludes the real situation by insisting that only one of two possibilities can be true, and all others are arbitrarily excluded. Let me give you another example, so that you can see how silly this is. Suppose I insist that either you, tonestone57 are a Martian, or you are a vampire. Which is it?
2nd, BFS was meant to reduce latency and improve responsiveness for multi-tasking. This patch does the *EXACT SAME THING FOR CFS*. I highly doubt this to be a coincidence.
I think that's the root of your problem. What you've described is one of the goals of a scheduler design. Essentially your claim amounts to "BFS was a good scheduler, therefore any other scheduler that claims to be good, or any change to a scheduler that improves it, is inspired by BFS". But this is obviously ridiculous.
Show me a post from the developer of the patch (Mike Galbraith) to prove this was being developed before BFS release!!!
Your mistake here is named 'post hoc ergo prompter hoc'. Which means roughly "before, therefore because". Just because this patch, and many others, were developed chronologically after BFS, does not make them related to BFS. I have already provided a non-technical example which illustrates this mistaken way of thinking. "Breakfast at Tiffany's" precedes "Star Trek", but it did not cause Star Trek to be created. There were also patches to improve the scheduler before BFS, and before CFS, and Con himself wrote at least three other schedulers with the goal of improving interactive performance. Tweaks to the scheduler will continue forever, it's not one of those things you just write once and forget about.
Re: Linux scheduler
Linux was having a responsiveness issue for awhile it seems:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODQ3Mw
Forever. All operating systems have "a responsiveness issue". The user wants everything now, and that isn't possible. So beyond a certain point, they will be disappointed. The more users can do (and in Linux they can do a whole lot) the more opportunities there are to disappoint them. So the job of trying to improve this is endlesss (note: not pointless, but without end)
This seems to be central to your misunderstanding. Responsiveness isn't like addition, where you can learn how to do it, and from there on it's plain sailing. You don't get to say "OK good, we don't have any responsiveness problems in our OS, so now we can move on". That never happens.
Which reminds me, you might want to check that "R1 feature list" they're developing for Haiku. It would be a shame if "actually write a decent scheduler" was missing from the list after it was a centre point of the argument in favour of spending many years writing a bespoke kernel for Haiku, wouldn't it?
Linux is for desktop + server markets so not sure where you get your info from Rox. Who do you think all those distros are for? Like Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, etc.
Yes, I wrote Linux is an OS that 'wears many hats', as in has many uses, from running in toasters to huge computer clusters. Haiku on the other hand is a desktop OS, it will not perform in the same league as Linux when used as a server for instance, the reason for this is that it sacrifices throughput for responsiveness under heavy load. What is your point exactly?
Linux was having a responsiveness issue for awhile it seems:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODQ3Mw
This actually describes the only responsiveness problems I've had with Linux (and it's my primary OS, I use it every day, though I hope that in the future Haiku will bump it down to secondary), which is disk I/O related. When I do very disk-heavy operations in Linux the gui will start to stutter, this is again the priority of throughput vs responsiveness. For a server and many other situations you want the disk operation to finish as fast as possible, for a desktop OS you will sacrifice disk operation speed in order to have a fully responsive system in the meantime. There's no magic involved, but there is a balance which can be hard to get right if there's no obvious target (like with Haiku that directly targets desktops). As for responsiveness during heavy cpu usage I've encountered no problems, here Linux performs perfectly for me.
Re: Linux scheduler
You also wrote:
"Furthermore Linux is not aimed as a 'Desktop' OS"
and
"unlike Haiku/Beos which is directly aimed at the desktop"
Maybe you forgot to quote that?
Linux is aimed at desktop usage as well as server and other devices too.(ie: mobile devices and embedded devices like cell phones, routers, gps, etc.). Android has displaced Linux on cell phones and tablets becoming more popular and used more as the "free" alternative.
Linux has been pushed for the desktop since the very start. Most of the distros are for desktop use. You make it sound like Linux only targets servers mainly and desktop (& embedded) use is just a side effect. Linux has been targeting the desktop but has gained little market share there. Targeting a market and getting acceptance/popularity are two different things.
Example: I can sell a product to the elderly (targeting) but doesn't mean they will buy and like my product (popularity; % of market share)
My point is Linux is targeted for desktop also. I also would think responsiveness as being the most important to a desktop OS which Linux is starting to finally realize with those changes/patches + Wayland. Linux has worked good for me but never great or excellent. Those improvements should *finally* make it better than just good. I also found it interesting to see why these improvements came along and how long they took to get incorporated (ie: don't happen right away - more like a year or longer).
Linux has been pushed for the desktop since the very start.
Oh please, 'pushed'?. The only serious push I've seen for Linux on the desktop has been Ubuntu, and that push has gotten good results. Beos in contrast was a commercial OS directly targeting the desktop and written to do so from the ground up which meant integrated GUI, integrated sound system, integrated desktop environment etc.
Most of the distros are for desktop use. You make it sound like Linux only targets servers mainly and desktop (& embedded) use is just a side effect.
Yes, the desktop use is a side effect (embedded devices is NOT, it's a huge market for Linux), Linux is a KERNEL. It doesn't come with anything that would make it a desktop OS. People have later added things to make it one, so we have tons of window managers, desktop environments, sound architectures, etc etc at different stages of maturity, this is because it was NOT intended as a desktop OS with a GUI and all bells and whistles, UNLIKE Beos which was exactly that. The distros is what YOU see, but that's not where the big money is being made with Linux, the desktop is NOT why Microsoft sees Linux as a competitor it wants to get rid of. Heck, Con Kolivas quit the Linux kernel development because he was frustrated with the lack of focus on the desktop and the favoring of server performance, which in his opinion was the reason his patches were rejected.
That Linux works as well as a desktop OS kernel as it does is a testament to it's ability to be used in so many different settings, but it will never have the same integration as an OS directly aimed for the desktop, like Beos or Windows.
Linux main use is NOT that of desktops, it's in servers, and embedded systems like routers, media players, smart phones, microwave ovens, media players, etc etc, that's were the money is and that's were the development money has been spent.
Linux has been targeting the desktop but has gained little market share there. Targeting a market and getting acceptance/popularity are two different things.
Maybe you need to wake up, A) Again, apart from Ubuntu there has been precious little money put into the 'Linux Desktop', B) As for market share, boy if Haiku ever reaches the current desktop market share of Linux I will be ecstatic, but being a realist I seriously doubt it.
I also found it interesting to see why these improvements came along and how long they took to get incorporated (ie: don't happen right away - more like a year or longer).
Again it's so very simple, the kernel devs (AGAIN, Linux is a KERNEL) have had precious little interest in improving Linux as a kernel for a DESKTOP OS since the money in Linux lies elsewhere (servers, embedded devices).
I'm guessing you are simply someone with a grudge against Linux for some reason and now you are simply trolling.
Re: Linux scheduler
Rox wrote:"I'm guessing you are simply someone with a grudge against Linux for some reason and now you are simply trolling."
I'm the one that said Linux is targeting and being used for desktop OS and I'm trolling? Look again. You're the one that is trolling saying Linux is not for desktop when even Wikipedia agrees with me and you went on with this big rant to say you were right about this point when you clearly weren't. Showing you have strong bias and feelings on the topic.
Yes, Linux has taken off on server market, everyone knows that but the distros are for desktop (individual use). Something you fail to see yourself. Who do Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuse, Sabayon, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, etc. target? Desktop users. Yes, these distros can be used for servers too but they were created for the average computer user to run at home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
"Linux (commonly pronounced /ˈlɪnəks/ LIN-əks in American English,[4][5] also pronounced /ˈlɪnʊks/ LIN-ooks[6] in Europe and Canada) refers to the family of Unix-like computer operating systems using the Linux kernel."
"Typically Linux is packaged in a format known as a Linux distribution for desktop and server use."
The information I provided about Linux is accurate and true! I have not made it up like you have about not marketing as desktop OS. I even gave links to support my comments where possible and even 2 cases for making of the CFS patch; one of which is right, but maybe reading the links I gave is too hard for you? Linux had responsiveness issues - 2 different situations. Patches were made to fix these issues. I pointed the issues/patches out with links. Maybe you wanted to sweep these issues under the rug and hide them? X has performance issues too. Why else are developers working on Wayland to replace it? I can pretty much prove everything I said so how is that trolling? Just because you disagree with me? I gave true information and supportive links. Maybe you're not used to technical analysis? These issues were real and recent. I just didn't make them up for the fun of it.
I am very happy that Linux is now looking at improving and fixing OS responsiveness and focusing equally on desktop use. Sounds like you're the one upset about this. Haiku will have a tougher time competing with Linux because of changes like these which improve latency and performance.
Re: Linux scheduler
Rox wrote:"I'm guessing you are simply someone with a grudge against Linux for some reason and now you are simply trolling."
I'm the one that said Linux is targeting and being used for desktop OS and I'm trolling? Look again. You're the one that is trolling saying Linux is not for desktop when even Wikipedia agrees with me and you went on with this big rant to say you were right about this point when you clearly weren't. Showing you have strong bias and feelings on the topic.
Yes, Linux has taken off on server market, everyone knows that but the distros are for desktop (individual use). Something you fail to see yourself. Who do Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuse, Sabayon, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, etc. target? Desktop users. Yes, these distros can be used for servers too but they were created for the average computer user to run at home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux
"Linux (commonly pronounced /ˈlɪnəks/ LIN-əks in American English,[4][5] also pronounced /ˈlɪnʊks/ LIN-ooks[6] in Europe and Canada) refers to the family of Unix-like computer operating systems using the Linux kernel."
"Typically Linux is packaged in a format known as a Linux distribution for desktop and server use."
The information I provided about Linux is accurate and true! I have not made it up like you have about not marketing as desktop OS. I even gave links to support my comments where possible and even 2 cases for making of the CFS patch; one of which is right, but maybe reading the links I gave is too hard for you? Linux had responsiveness issues - 2 different situations. Patches were made to fix these issues. I pointed the issues/patches out with links. Maybe you wanted to sweep these issues under the rug and hide them? X has performance issues too. Why else are developers working on Wayland to replace it? I can pretty much prove everything I said so how is that trolling? Just because you disagree with me? I gave true information and supportive links. Maybe you're not used to technical analysis? These issues were real and recent. I just didn't make them up for the fun of it.
I am very happy that Linux is now looking at improving and fixing OS responsiveness and focusing equally on desktop use. Sounds like you're the one upset about this. Haiku will have a tougher time competing with Linux because of changes like these which improve latency and performance.
I really don't see linux competing with anything on the desktop with its less then %1 marketshare on the desktop. If linux is competing with anything on the desktop, its MAC which has a 4-5% market share.
Its great they are fixing the responsiveness issues. How are they going to make it point and click friendly ? Truth is, the linux elitist mentaility will doom the OS to a command line type structure for the forseable future.
I really don't see haiku having a problem competing with linux, becuase linux isn't competitive in the desktop space as it sits now. hiaku shouldn't target linux users, total waste of time.
Re: Linux scheduler
Yes, Linux has taken off on server market, everyone knows that but the distros are for desktop (individual use). Something you fail to see yourself. Who do Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuse, Sabayon, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, etc. target? Desktop users.
And what is a linux distro? 99% of them aren't even adding anything to the Linux software stack, they just take what is there and combines it in different configurations and call it distro X. And since noone is making money on the desktop there hasn't been any major 'push' as you describe it until Ubuntu, which I seriously doubt is anywhere near breaking even with what Mark Shuttleworth has poured into the project. Again as it stands the money in Linux lies in servers and embedded devices, which is where the effort has been placed. And since you like to qoute wikipedia:
'Primarily based on web server statistics, various companies estimated that the desktop market share of Linux range from less than 1% to 4.8%.[80] In comparison, Microsoft operating systems hold more than 85%.'
'In September 2008 Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer admitted that 60% of web-servers run Linux versus 40% that run Windows Server.'
Does this paint a picture? Linux is PUSHED for the server and embedded market, and even with Ubuntu the resources for improving the linux desktop experience are miniscule by comparison.
So stop staring yourself blind on the number of distros which are 99% nothing more than a combination of existing packages with a volunteer community behind it. We could have that for Haiku aswell if it starts gathering attention but having 20 distro's won't make Haiku in itself any better, only code contributions will.
What I love with Haiku/Beos is that it's modeled to be a desktop/GUI os from top to bottom, everything nicely integrated with standard api's for gui, sound etc. And this is something I think Linux will never achieve even if it get's a major desktop push, since the pieces that make up the 'Linux desktop' are from very different origins and often doesn't fit very well.
Beos/Haiku is the best desktop environment I've ever used and since I'm primarily a desktop user it's what I look forward to using it as my primary os once it has matured sufficiently. Until then I will get my work done on Linux.
Re: Linux scheduler
"And what is a linux distro?"
Distros are versions of Linux OS for desktop and server use.
A couple of the distros began back in 1994-1996. Like, Debian, Slackware, Redhat and aimed to capture the desktop market from back then.
"Debian can be used as a desktop as well as server operating system."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian
"And since you like to qoute wikipedia:
'Primarily based on web server statistics, various companies estimated that the desktop market share of Linux range from less than 1% to 4.8%.[80] In comparison, Microsoft operating systems hold more than 85%.'"
The key phrase being:
"various companies estimated that the desktop market share of Linux"
In case you missed it, the keyword was: desktop, meaning it has a presence in the desktop (home) market.
Very important! Since you went to Wikipedia, did you not notice on the right hand side the summary box where it says:
"Marketing target - Desktops, servers, embedded devices"
"Does this paint a picture? Linux is PUSHED for the server and embedded market..."
Linux is just popular for server and embedded use. I explained the difference between marketing towards (or targeting) a specific market versus popularity in that market. They are not the same! What percent of the desktop market would Linux have to capture to be considered a desktop OS by you? 5%? 10%? 20%? 30%? 50%? You can't use market share to say it was targeted for that market because market share only gauges popularity in different markets.
Example: what if I create a muffler for trucks and cars and I get 40% truck market and 2% car market. Does that mean my muffler is only for trucks? According to you, it does. But in reality the muffler is made for and targeted to both markets.
I agree that Linux is made up of many different components that don't mesh as well as Haiku. You have one set of developers doing the kernel, others on X, others on Gnome, KDE, fluxbox, etc. But, that doesn't exclude the OS from targeting desktop use. Only means Linux is not tightly integrated like Haiku. You are looking at how Linux is put together and not what markets it is targeted towards.
What you don't understand is:
1) Linux is targeted for desktop, server and embedded use (Wikipedia agrees - look @ summary box)
2) Linux is popular for server & embedded use and unpopular for desktop use
These are two different things which you keep confusing! Both true, but I am talking about #1 and you are trying to use #2 to say #1 is not true. You also throw in a #3 saying Linux is a bunch of parts put together and so does not qualify as a desktop OS. Does not matter how Linux is put together because it still markets to desktop users.
"I will get my work done on Linux."
You say Linux is a server OS but you use it @ home on desktop. I'm surprised you don't use a desktop OS like Windows or MacOS X then if Linux is only for server and embedded like you say.
Re: Linux scheduler
If I run linux it'll be on a server. Thats it. Its otherwise just as practically useless as BEOS,MAC OSX,HAIKU etc.
Theres a reason MS dominates the desktop. they have all the applications and all the drivers.
None of the freeware on the market is competitive. If you add up the market share of linux,macosx,haiku,bsd etc etc etc, the make up like 8% of the market for dekstop OS.
As for embeded stuff with linux. I expect ARM to get handed its ass on tablet and then phones. INTEL and AMD want some market share.
, meaning it has a presence in the desktop (home) market.
Yes, which again is quite admirable given how little effort has been made (commercially) to push it towards the desktop. Compare that to the money/efforts made in pushing linux into the server and embedded devices market. There is simply no comparison.
Your entire premise is that Linux has been pushed hard as a desktop OS and has failed, while totally ignoring that practically all the money spent on linux development has been in the areas of servers and embedded devices, simply because there's really no money in the Linux desktop.
It took a rich guy (Shuttleworth) to actually get some traction for Linux on the desktop through Ubuntu, and I have seen nothing indicating that he is making money from Ubuntu.
While Linux desktop does not offer the same desktop experience that you would be accustomed to with Windows or OSX, I am willing to sacrifice that for the benefits of a free fast and lean system of which I have total control. I perfectly understand if other people doesn't. Obviously I'd prefer to have all these AND a better desktop experience, and this is what Haiku holds for me.
Now, having seen your posts here and on OSNews, I know you have a grudge against Linux and people who use it. And I've seen many more here on Haiku-os.org which are (judging by their comments) more interested in pouring hate over Linux than pouring love over Haiku, which is just sad. I'm not surprised that so few Haiku developers ever venture here.
Re: Linux scheduler
Linux hasn't tried to be on the desktop ? Really ? Its been a client system for a long time. I don't think anyone here Hates linux. I think most of us see the flaw in the idealogy of its development and belive that its never going to really be good at anything but server applications. As for linux embeeded,well depends on the embeeded enviroment of which you speak,. There are plenty of embeeded MCU's in all manner of products that will never see linux, nor would it be a good idea. The only thing helping linux today is the open liscense and the fact that phone manufacturers have really latched onto it. Which I suspect will change when sub1w x86 arrives mid next year in bulk and cheap and they can drop the exstensive costs and can simply load a stripped down version of x86 win7 and then they have a wider marketing platform.
While freedom can be a good thing, its not always the best thing.
To truly develope a good product, someone has to have the vision to build it.
, meaning it has a presence in the desktop (home) market.
Yes, which again is quite admirable given how little effort has been made (commercially) to push it towards the desktop. Compare that to the money/efforts made in pushing linux into the server and embedded devices market. There is simply no comparison.
Your entire premise is that Linux has been pushed hard as a desktop OS and has failed, while totally ignoring that practically all the money spent on linux development has been in the areas of servers and embedded devices, simply because there's really no money in the Linux desktop.
It took a rich guy (Shuttleworth) to actually get some traction for Linux on the desktop through Ubuntu, and I have seen nothing indicating that he is making money from Ubuntu.
While Linux desktop does not offer the same desktop experience that you would be accustomed to with Windows or OSX, I am willing to sacrifice that for the benefits of a free fast and lean system of which I have total control. I perfectly understand if other people doesn't. Obviously I'd prefer to have all these AND a better desktop experience, and this is what Haiku holds for me.
Now, having seen your posts here and on OSNews, I know you have a grudge against Linux and people who use it. And I've seen many more here on Haiku-os.org which are (judging by their comments) more interested in pouring hate over Linux than pouring love over Haiku, which is just sad. I'm not surprised that so few Haiku developers ever venture here.
Re: Linux scheduler
windows 7 will never run on a phone. It's failing hard on the tablet front. You have some terrible ossesion that x86 is the best processor architecture....
Do you work for Intel or something?
Re: Linux scheduler
#1
"Your entire premise is that Linux has been pushed hard as a desktop OS and has failed"
Wrong!!! You even quoted me in your first reply but now you are making things up as you normally seem to do. Please look at my posts in this thread and quote me where I say it was pushed hard.
tonestone wrote "Linux has been pushed for the desktop since the very start."
I even proved this statement by telling you about Slackware, Debian and Red Hat. I never said pushed hard anywhere in my posts. That was you!!! I said, Linux was pushed or promoted as a desktop OS from the early years (the start). You disagreed that Linux was targeting desktop market because it never became popular and desktop users were only a side effect. According to you, Linux must be popular on desktop to be considered a real desktop OS. I even asked you what percentage of market Linux would have to get and you never answered. Popularity does not decide which market is targeted!
#2
You are the one that is fixated on Linux popularity. From my first post I was talking about Linux targeting the desktop market and Wikipedia says the same. You have been going on and on about how unpopular Linux is on the desktop and I agreed with this but I said Linux was still marketing (targeting) the desktop. Something you can't seem to comprehend. Not sure what you're trying to prove. The fact is that Linux is a desktop OS and marketed as such, from 1994 with the distros I stated, which you disagreed with. I said it was pushed (marketed) from 1994 as being desktop OS and nothing about how hard or strongly Linux was pushed/marketed. That was you. How do you get pushed hard from pushed from the very start??? Linux would have almost no desktop users today if distros were only for server or embedded systems like you keep saying.
#3
"Now, having seen your posts here and on OSNews, I know you have a grudge against Linux and people who use it."
That is very interesting because I haven't posted to OSNews in a very long time like over 2 or 3 years. So, either you have me confused with someone else you hate or you recall my very old posts (which I can't recall myself) and held a long time grudge against me (meaning you're a vindictive person). Yes, I have posted to some Linux threads here recently telling people that Linux is a good OS overall (I've used for many years myself) and not to bash it because different. Now I use Windows 7 mostly and very happy and maybe why you started attacking me. Haiku developers don't venture here to deal with users like you who give others a hard time. I never said Linux was popular for desktop but you constantly go on about this because in your mind I must have. The issue I pointed out was Linux is a desktop OS too! I proved Linux is for desktop by giving references and quotes. The issue was never about popularity of Linux on desktop or the actual desktop experience offered by Linux. You continued to steer the conversation that way and avoid saying you were wrong. Linux is also for desktop and been marketed like that since 1994 with distros whether you like it or not. And, on top of that, you bashed me in two different posts calling me a Linux hater and troll. You actually come off as the real Linux hater saying not meant for desktop OS (just side effect) but distros have been stating since 1994 that Linux is meant for the desktop too.
Re: Linux scheduler
I even proved this statement by telling you about Slackware, Debian and Red Hat. I never said pushed hard anywhere in my posts. That was you!!! I said, Linux was pushed or promoted as a desktop OS from the early years (the start). You disagreed that Linux was targeting desktop market because it never became popular and desktop users were only a side effect.
No, while the 'hard' part was obviously a misquote by me, there's quite a difference here when it comes to 'targeting'. That mainly volunteers have created distros where they combine packages from the open source ecosystem with the linux kernel in order to create a desktop OS does not make it as if the Linux (kernel) has been pushed or promoted as a desktop os from the very start. The industry that grew around Linux grew based upon it's strenghts, and that was as a server and embedded devices, NOT the desktop. Likewise if there is a industry that grows our of Haiku (yes please!) it will not be as a server and most likely not in the embedded device sector either.
You have been going on and on about how unpopular Linux is on the desktop and I agreed with this but I said Linux was still marketing (targeting) the desktop.
No, actually I think Linux is surprisingly popular on the desktop despite how extremely little work on Linux (kernel) that has been done towards improving the desktop experience. Like I said I'd be ecstatic if Haiku would reach the same amount of desktop users that Linux has. Being entirely aimed at the desktop Haiku/Beos offers a desktop experience that Linux can (in my opinion) never reach, however the lack of hardware/software support is what's stacked against Haiku, which is a direct result of having a small amount of developers.
Linux would have almost no desktop users today if distros were only for server or embedded systems like you keep saying.
Where did I say that? You seem to have problems separating Linux (kernel) from distro's (kernel combined with different software packages). I've never said distros where only for server or embedded systems, quite the contrary 99% of distros are probably aimed at desktop use, but anyone can make a distro, which is why there's so many of them (a reality Haiku will likely face should it grow in popularity). But how many of these distros are used in the industries were Linux is huge? These are primarily the result of volunteer communities who wishes to use Linux + a combination of packages on their desktop, not the result of the Linux devs wanting to see Linux make a splash on the desktop market (again Con Kolivas who you referred to left kernel development due to the lack of interest there in improving the kernel for desktop use, should ring a bell).
And likewise if there's suddenly a number of community Haiku 'server' distros then it doesn't mean that Haiku is actually targeting the server market, because the programming work that goes into Haiku is aimed at improving it for desktop usage, the vast majority of work that has gone into Linux by contrast has been aimed at improving it for server/embedded usage, see the difference?
That is very interesting because I haven't posted to OSNews in a very long time like over 2 or 3 years. So, either you have me confused with someone else you hate or you recall my very old posts (which I can't recall myself) and held a long time grudge against me (meaning you're a vindictive person).
Well likely I was just too lazy here and for that I apologize, I skimmed some posts of yours on OSNews like:
-'What are you afraid of, that Linux will lose the battle? You like Linux so much, then stick with it and let the rest of us enjoy BeOS/Haiku.'
and drew what seems like faulty conclusions, so again I will apologize for that lazy mishap.
Re: Linux scheduler
Being entirely aimed at the desktop Haiku/Beos offers a desktop experience that Linux can (in my opinion) never reach, however the lack of hardware/software support is what's stacked against Haiku, which is a direct result of having a small amount of developers.
Hardware/software support is practically the entire purpose of an operating system.
Lack of support is in fact a direct result of decisions made by the "small amount of developers". For example, if they had chosen to take an established kernel and use that, they'd have hardware support and more developer time to spend on the remaining tasks.
Re: Linux scheduler
"where they combine packages from the open source ecosystem with the linux kernel in order to create a desktop OS does not make it as if the Linux (kernel) has been pushed or promoted as a desktop os from the very start."
What? You're trying to use the argument that the Linux kernel was not intended for desktop use from the very start. That distros decided this themselves. Not true. Linus intended Linux to be for desktop use himself. I even pointed to Linux Wikipedia entry showing Linux is targeted to desktop, servers and embedded.
comp.os.minix post from Linus (August 1991), "I'm doing a (free) operating system....", "I've currently ported bash(1.08) and gcc(1.40), and things seem to work. This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and I'd like to know what features most people would want."
That sounds more like making Linux for desktop use to me. Linus' M.Sc. thesis was titled Linux: A Portable Operating System. Does that sound like he only wanted to target the server and embedded markets to you?
I would strongly say that Linus was making sure his OS would be adopted on the desktop also from the first day he coded the kernel. Linus never said his OS was just for servers. Corporations strongly adopted Linux because similar to Unix and very strong at security and stability - two very important things for servers.
"again Con Kolivas who you referred to left kernel development due to the lack of interest there in improving the kernel for desktop use, should ring a bell."
You still don't understand. The issue was not that Linux kernel could not be used on or marketed to the desktop but about lagging performance on the desktop. Linux is better suited to servers because it focused on throughput and not responsiveness. Likely a result of being similar to Unix in design. Below quote talks about performance on desktop and not Linux being just for servers.
Linux wikipedia:
"The performance of Linux on the desktop has been a controversial topic; for example in 2007 Con Kolivas accused the Linux community of favoring performance on servers. He quit Linux kernel development because he was frustrated with this lack of focus on the desktop, and then gave a "tell all" interview on the topic.[56] Since then a significant effort has been expended improving the desktop experience."
I get what you're saying. The Linux kernel is better suited for servers and embedded markets but that does not exclude its use from the desktop. Anyone can still use Linux on the desktop. You can say that Linux has failed to capture market share or popularity on the desktop. Still, Linux is very useable as a desktop OS and been so from the very start.
Think about these. Can Linux be used on the desktop? Has Linux been used on the desktop? Did Linus intend Linux kernel to be only for servers and embedded systems? Have distros marketed Linux for the desktop? Are certain Linux applications only for desktop (ie: bittorrent client)?
"Well likely I was just too lazy here and for that I apologize, I skimmed some posts of yours on OSNews like:
-'What are you afraid of, that Linux will lose the battle? You like Linux so much, then stick with it and let the rest of us enjoy BeOS/Haiku.'"
You were not lazy but trying to dig up dirt on me. It is an attack style tactic some people use to tarnish others. You bring up the post to make me look bad and then apologize to make yourself look good. I will respond to this:
1) That post was from April 2007 (3 1/2 years ago). What does an old post like that have to do with this thread? It only attacks my character.
2) It was a Zeta (Haiku) thread (to give context)
3) A linux poster was being negative about Haiku. Saying it would amount to very little. This part was annoying "Haiku won't do any better than BeOS on the desktop". Of course the rest of his post seems accurate but he didn't have to come to a Haiku based thread to dump on Haiku which hit a nerve with me.
4) Opinions and attitudes can change over time. I may think differently about something today than I did 6+ months ago.
5) You posted my quote here to show what? That I was angry with a Linux user? Or very likely to make me look bad.
6) I was using BeOS (& Haiku) lots back then and was enjoying it. I didn't need someone coming to Haiku thread to say it would never go anywhere and I should change to Linux. Irrelevant if he may have been right. It's like me going to a Linux group and telling them to switch to Windows 7.
Re: Linux scheduler
windows 7 will never run on a phone. It's failing hard on the tablet front. You have some terrible ossesion that x86 is the best processor architecture....
Do you work for Intel or something?
As ARM gains more instruction power IE ARM64 its one little glimmer of advantage makes it more like x86. In fact some things just don't make sense on ARM. I don't work for Intel/AMD etc, but the software ecosystem is all about x86 " and will remain so for the forseeable future" from client to server and if your in the bussiness of running a bussiness. A flat ISA is more about reducing maitenance costs then anything else.
BTW WIN7 will be on tablets. And the new APU's from AMD will do a much better job then the POS that was ATOM, which Intel will improve.I am more then betting the new AMD APU will completely change the tablet market and the newer sub and 1w APU's will resolve the nagging competition issue with x86 in the phone market.
ARM is out of time and the one small advantage it did have will be over when longer words are invovled. Amdahls law commands it.Henceforth, more instruction power creates x86, which is why x86 beat arm in the first place.
Re: Linux scheduler
Being entirely aimed at the desktop Haiku/Beos offers a desktop experience that Linux can (in my opinion) never reach, however the lack of hardware/software support is what's stacked against Haiku, which is a direct result of having a small amount of developers.
Hardware/software support is practically the entire purpose of an operating system.
Lack of support is in fact a direct result of decisions made by the "small amount of developers". For example, if they had chosen to take an established kernel and use that, they'd have hardware support and more developer time to spend on the remaining tasks.
What established kernel ? WindowNT ?
Beucase when it comes to hardware and software support. Really does anyone else even get close ?
Re: Linux scheduler
For any interested, here is the history of Linux. Very good read.
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/
A quick summary:
1) In 1983, Richard Stallman started the GNU Project. In 1984, he began the GNU operating system.
2) GNU OS was to compete with DOS on PCs. Other choices at that time were Apple Macs or Unix both of which were too expensive for average computer user.
3) By 1991, most parts of GNU OS were ready except for a kernel. It would take a few years more to develop GNU Hurd.
4) Linus could not wait and had a Linux kernel ready in 1991 for 386 & newer (x86) PCs.
5) Linux was later ported to other hardware platforms as more developers joined the development.
Linux OS = Linux Kernel + GNU components
Reading the history clearly shows Linux was made for portable computers (PCs) to compete with DOS and later on with Windows. Linux later went after servers when ported to other hardware platforms. Most servers back in early to mid 90s would have been non-x86 since you only had 386-586 CPUs. Many corporations using Unix would have changed over to Linux because of cost. That would explain why Linux has 60% in server market. What % does Unix hold today? Microsoft also did not start going after servers until July 1993 with their NT 3.1 Advanced Server.
Re: Linux scheduler
That sounds more like making Linux for desktop use to me. Linus' M.Sc. thesis was titled Linux: A Portable Operating System. Does that sound like he only wanted to target the server and embedded markets to you?
What his initial target was and what ended up being the target(s) in reality are two separate things (as is VERY often the case). Fact is that the kernel development has been targeted at server and embedded devices, not desktop use. The companies that are funding the kernel development use linux predominantly as servers and in embedded devices, so it's not exactly surprising. Shuttleworth created Ubuntu which tries to combine alot of the existing open source software into a simple to use desktop, but it's not like they're really changing anything in Linux to better suit desktop usage. Same goes for the myriad of community distros out there. Who knows, maybe this latest patch is the start of an interest from the kernel developers to actually improve the kernel for desktop use, but I'm doubtful. They are paid by companies to work on things said companies want after all.
I get what you're saying. The Linux kernel is better suited for servers and embedded markets but that does not exclude its use from the desktop. Anyone can still use Linux on the desktop.
I've never said Linux is excluded from desktop usage, hell I'm using it as my primary os every day. And yes it is very useable, just not as integrated/smooth/responsive under load as dedicated desktop OS'es are. But going from Linux being useable as a desktop OS to 'Linux is being pushed on the desktop' is totally different. In order for Linux to be 'pushed' on the desktop it would mean that the kernel devs would actually be improving the kernel for desktop use, but they really aren't. Priority has been (and despite this patch most likely will continue to be) on servers and the embedded market.
You were not lazy but trying to dig up dirt on me. It is an attack style tactic some people use to tarnish others. You bring up the post to make me look bad and then apologize to make yourself look good.
No, I really was lazy, I thought your comments here were negative on Linux and I remembered you from OSNews so I googled and landed on some lucky13 page where there were quotes from you (and him) regarding Linux/Haiku from an OSNews thread and I drew faulty conclusions from that. It was lazy, but really no malice. And again I do sincerely apologize, and NOT because I think it will make me look good (not sure I understood the logic on that one).
Re: Linux scheduler
What established kernel ? WindowNT ?
Beucase when it comes to hardware and software support. Really does anyone else even get close ?
NT would be a good choice if it was available, certainly.
Re: Linux scheduler
Read the history of Linux link I gave in previous post.
You'll see 1) that Linux was a Unix style OS for PCs (home users) 2) Linus created the kernel on x86 (386?) and was first intended for x86 computers which were not used as servers back then. Later, Linux replaced Unix on servers because similar design, same or better performance and free.
And yes it is very useable, just not as integrated/smooth/responsive under load as dedicated desktop OS'es are.
What does this have to do with Linux as a desktop OS? - performance is irrelevant. My original comment was about Linux being promoted for desktop use and not about which OS performs better - that's a different issue you bring up.
"But going from Linux being useable as a desktop OS to 'Linux is being pushed on the desktop' is totally different. In order for Linux to be 'pushed' on the desktop it would mean that the kernel devs would actually be improving the kernel for desktop use, but they really aren't."
No, just means the distros have to push Linux for desktop use. You see, your argument is about performance again when you say "improving the kernel for desktop use." Yes, Linux kernel is more suitable for servers but it still works on the desktop.
The major disagreement comes from this. What is considered a desktop OS? A desktop OS is an operating system which a home user can install, configure and use desktop applications - that is it! Most Linux distros allow the average computer user to simply do this.
Your arguments are flawed, focusing on performance (which OS is better for desktop) and market share (popularity). The definition of a desktop OS does not include performance and market share. Your comments only say that Linux OS is better optimized and performing on servers compared to desktop use.
A desktop OS is about ease of use & configuration and desktop applications not about performance (from APIs, component integration, kernel design) or market share. Linux distros have been targeting the desktop market since 1993 and Linux from the start as that was the intended market for the OS in the first place.
And again I do sincerely apologize, and NOT because I think it will make me look good (not sure I understood the logic on that one).
Apology accepted. You used a quote that made me look bad while you were apologizing - like saying, I am sorry I called you a Linux hater but what do you expect when you said this comment that I'm posting now for everyone to see with my apology.
What does this have to do with Linux as a desktop OS? - performance is irrelevant. My original comment was about Linux being promoted for desktop use and not about which OS performs better - that's a different issue you bring up.
And again, by the kernel devs, as proven by what they are optimizing Linux (kernel) for they are not pushing Linux as a desktop OS.
These was your original questions:
-'Why it took so long to make this 224 line change makes me really wonder what is going on with Linux.'
-'My second point is that CFS was first included in kernel 2.6.23 released around October 2007. It took 3 years to make this small change to improve scheduler performance on Linux. Why didn't anyone look into doing this sooner?'
And it's as I've been saying, this scheduler change improves DESKTOP responsiveness, an area which the kernel devs have not bothered optimizing for since the Linux business lies elsewere. It's not a big mystery.
No, just means the distros have to push Linux for desktop use. You see, your argument is about performance again when you say "improving the kernel for desktop use." Yes, Linux kernel is more suitable for servers but it still works on the desktop.
And yet the Linux KERNEL is not pushed for desktop use, again as proven by the lack of work in order to make the kernel perform better for desktop use, which has always been a sore spot for those using Linux as a kernel in their desktop OS.
Your arguments are flawed, focusing on performance (which OS is better for desktop) and market share (popularity).
Again, my arguments are on the LACK of work on the Linux kernel in order to make it perform better for desktop use (which is primarily about responsiveness during heavy load). Where did I bring up market share as an argument against Linux as a desktop OS? If anything I've said it's amazing that it has such a market share despite the lack of Kernel development towards making it better for desktop use.
Are you saying that if the kernel developers are optimizing the kernel for server use, that they are pushing it for use on the desktop? No, they are pushing it for use as a server. Likewise Haiku devs are pushing Haiku to be used on the desktop since they optimize it for use on the desktop, that you may in fact use Haiku as a server doesn't change this.
like saying, I am sorry I called you a Linux hater but what do you expect when you said this comment that I'm posting now for everyone to see with my apology.
No that quote was for your benefit as in what context I misread you as someone being anti-Linux, and I seriously doubt anyone except you and me is actually reading this discussion anymore so I doubt you have to worry about what 'others may think'.
Re: Linux scheduler
True, my first post was looking at Linux performance issue (responsiveness) on the desktop. I wanted to show that Linux has issues too and takes time to resolve them. You were the one that said Linux is not intended for desktop use.
"And again, by the kernel devs, as proven by what they are optimizing Linux (kernel) for they are not pushing Linux as a desktop OS."
Nope, that only shows they're not improving performance on the desktop. You don't need to have an optimized Linux kernel for the desktop for Linux to be pushed as a desktop OS. Linux desktop performance and Linux for the desktop are two different things. An OS can still be for the desktop but not have the greatest performance. Your point only shows that Linux kernel is tuned more for servers but does not exclude it from desktop use and promotion.
To prove Linux is also pushed for the desktop I gave:
1) History of Linux OS (with link) - showing it was meant to take on DOS on PCs & Linus creating it for x86 systems (386 & 486 back then - home PCs).
2) I provided links to Wikipedia which stated "Linux is marketed as a desktop, server and embedded OS", multi-functional OS.
3) I gave the definition of a desktop OS - showing performance does not factor into it.
4) I tried to point out that optimized for desktop (performance) versus being useable and targeted to desktop are different things.
5) I showed that distros have been pushing Linux as desktop OS from day one
You have:
1) not given any definition of desktop OS or said if you agreed with one I gave
2) provided only 1 or 2 Wikipedia links which actually agreed with me. Showing that Linux is desktop OS but lagging in performance
3) made your argument about kernel performance on the desktop (ie: kernel is not optimized for desktop so therefore Linux is not a desktop OS - weak argument)
Re: Linux scheduler
You were the one that said Linux is not intended for desktop use.
3) made your argument about kernel performance on the desktop (ie: kernel is not optimized for desktop so therefore Linux is not a desktop OS - weak argument)
No you keep dancing around what I actually said in argument to what you actually said. I said Linux is not PUSHED as a desktop OS since the kernel devs are NOT optimizing it for desktop use but for server use. Your argument was about Linux being 'PUSHED' for the desktop (you claimed it was), not wheter or not Linux is being used as a desktop OS. Again I could use Haiku as a server, it doesn't mean it is 'PUSHED' as a server OS. Linux is used for a TON of things, most likely many that Linus had never envisioned, it doesn't mean that Linux (kernel) is being 'PUSHED' for that use. In order for Linux to be PUSHED for use in an area the devs would have made an effort in optimizing it for use in that area (unless of course it already performs perfectly well for that type of use, but in the case of desktop usage we know that is NOT the case).
Re: Linux scheduler
So,
1) Linus creating Linux for desktop systems in the first place
2) Linux defined as a desktop, server and embedded OS
3) distros saying Linux is for desktop use
4) Linux users saying Linux is great for the desktop
5) developers adding improvements to make Linux desktop friendly
6) developers adding in kernel patches to improve desktop use (and support additional hardware)
is not considered PUSHING Linux to the desktop? Seems like they're still promoting for desktop to me. Your argument is still weak. Ask a Linux developer and they will tell you that Linux is for desktop, server and embedded. They don't PUSH it for one use over the other. A developer won't say that Linux is only for servers. You're still wrong. Linux is not optimized for desktop use but it is still and has been PUSHED for desktop by developers. With devs saying Linux is for desktop systems they are PUSHING it for that use also. The kernel does not have to be optimized for desktop use to be PUSHED. Only requires developers saying "Linux is for desktop too" and that is considered PUSHING Linux. You don't need an optimized kernel for desktop to PUSH Linux to desktop. Difference with Haiku is that developers say Haiku is targeted for desktop use even if useable for servers. ie: Haiku not PUSHED for servers. Linux listed for desktop, server and embedded use meaning PUSHED for all three of these markets.
What you're really saying is:
1) Linux kernel development is not focused for desktop systems
2) Linux kernel is unoptimized for desktop use
Re: Linux scheduler
What you're really saying is:
1) Linux kernel development is not focused for desktop systems
2) Linux kernel is unoptimized for desktop use
YES, and this means Linux is NOT 'PUSHED' as a desktop OS. Unlike Haiku which IS PUSHED as a desktop OS, given that the Haiku development IS focused for desktop systems, and Haiku IS optimized for desktop use.