Linux kernel dev has gone well and truly corporate – report The Linux kernel is growing and changing faster than ever, but its development is increasingly being supported by a select group of companies, rather than by volunteer developers. That's according to the latest survey of Linux kernel of development by the Linux Foundation, which it published to coincide with the kickoff of …
There was a very nice blog article by LP on the future of BTRFS/systemd etc...
The point was made that the proliferation of distros and library/package versions causing dependency issues that affect stability. This is one factor driving systemd. I suspect it is the reason WHY the distros are making it a priority.
I recommend you read LP's words and thoughts about the vision, rather than the ad hominem invective that is invariably in his wake.
The problem is LP is amazingly productive and I think shouting is easier than competing with a better idea.
Not sure really...
P.
Please stop with the FUD
RH is not forcing anything on anybody. Distro developers are adopting it because they see value on it.
Is it perfect no it is not, does it have problems, yes it does, does it solve a problem? yes, a very complex one no one has stepped in to solve.
I bet you're one of those who complain about Linux lack of coherence or fragmentation.
Distro developers are adopting it because they see value on it.
Exactly. Think about it: they are the ones who have to maintain these init scripts. It's just the dick-heads who've read something in a forum that systemd is bad because they fucked something up, and have continued the FUD and hysteria.
I wonder about this "company affiliation". Are all those working with the kernel with a company affiliation doing it because they are asked to do it. Or, surprise surprise are there also people in IT who like to work with the kernel too. like if I sing in a chorus and work for say IBM does not prove IBM gives a shit about what I do in my spare time
As for Intel, I am not surprised as they bought one or two companies deeply involved in the embedded space and with a lot of knowledge about the kernel.
Any way it's very clear that Linux has become very important for many companies and the tool of choice for many too.
...And that's the type of proposition open source fanatics don't want to see discussed openly, even though it's a reality. The NSA already has significant chunks of code in just about every major Linux distro going by the name of SELinux, but that fact is unwisely set aside for convenience sake, as is Ken Thompson's very real little bit of open source malware (circa 1984): http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html (lest we forget).
In the wake of Kaspersky's recent exposé of GrayFish, I can only conclude that a well-scrutinized open source OS is only half a solution at best. We now need hardware manufacturers to open up their firmwares and microcodes in order we have a platform reasonably secure from such nefarious exploits. Oh the NSA, CIA, GCHQ, CSIS, FSB/KGB, China, are all very capable threats, even to open software. In light of recent findings, there is no doubt they have sleepers embedded in Linux kernel development. And then there's a multitude of non-kernel attack vectors such as glibc, systemd and the copious DEs available.
>>"...And that's the type of proposition open source fanatics don't want to see discussed openly, even though it's a reality. The NSA already has significant chunks of code in just about every major Linux distro going by the name of SELinux"
I have plenty of objections to the bundle of ad-hoc fixes that is SELinux, but oddly enough it being a ploy by the NSA is not one of them. And this is from someone who had an extended argument on these forums about Windows vs. Linux security models. All of the SELinux code is Open Source and it is scrutinized by some very smart people who have no affiliation with the NSA (and in some cases are pretty much enemies, such as the Chinese government). When it comes to security against third parties, both Open Source and Proprietary have advantages and disadvantages and neither is inherently more secure, imo. But when it comes to security against a subverted vendor, Open Source has a clear and demonstrable advantage - you can inspect what you're given.
There could be cleverly hidden flaws in GNU/Linux, but I think the main threats to any user are going to be accidental vulnerabilities or (from well-resourced enemies) firmware exploits. Sorry for the long post - I just don't think SELinux is subverted.
You're probably right about SELinux... I'm just afraid it'll eventually get used as a bargaining chip for when the US government negotiates contracts with Red Hat, who in turn have a lot of sway with kernel; if SELinux is a mess, that fact could be leveraged by NSA (or any such equivalent) to cleverly inject malicious code with the appearance of benignity on first, second, third blush. Or maybe SELinux is not so bad in itself, but a red herring to divert scrutiny from parts of the kernel. I have no reason to believe or not believe any of this, just erring on the side of caution.
When something reaches critical mass, it tends to attract attention: Windows, Mac, Android, iOS already have the spies' attention. Linux is important on the server side, and it's destined to take a significant share of that creepy space they call the Internet of Things... So it's just a matter of time before they (governments and other shady types) find a way in there too. (I'm guessing a binary blob might be good starting point for them).
I apologize for the length of my post... I find this cloak and dagger stuff innarresting if not quite unsettling!
I couldn't agree more. Given that quality, not quantity, is the measuring stick, we definitely do need free (as in open) software. I'd like nothing more than to own a computer with open source firmware, BIOS and operating system to run good quality, open goods (and I wouldn't mind paying for that transparency). I may be naive, but I still hope that day comes.
As an aside (and nothing against Linux), but it just isn't my first choice for a free, open source OS. I've got my fingers crossed on PC-BSD, Haiku, or ReactOS. I'm still using Windows to retain my investments and seriously looking to FreeDOS as a platform for programming projects.
I just wanted to bring up ReactOS because that's an open source project (also under the GPL) that barely gets any air time. It doesn't seem to have nearly the of manpower of Linux at its disposal, but it does aim to bring a free and complete operating system compatible with Windows to the masses. I just checked at https://www.reactos.org/ and it looks like it's still in the "alpha" stage of development. But I find it interesting nonetheless.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
