[NCLUG] Re: Thoughts on Linux Users

John L. Bass jbass at dmsd.com
Thu Nov 15 02:08:14 MST 2007


Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> writes:
> There's little I find as odious as argument from authority, and you do
> that a *lot*.  No wonder I have my "knickers" in a knot.

and you don't?

> I don't disregard the fact that some specious percentage guesstimate of
> users avoid the CLI at "any cost" -- I just don't regard that as a sign
> that the CLI is "obsolete" or "evil".

Then don't ..."obsolete" or "evil" are your words.

> Who the *hell* said anything about "going back to character interfaces"
> and "forcing users to abandon the GUI's[sic]"?  The irony is actually so
> strong here it smells.
>
> What you *did* say is this, by the way:
>
>    native GUI support as a general and primary user interface
>
> Thus, you *did* say something that roughly equate to what I said above,
> namely that you want to eliminate the CLI as native, primary interface.
> Note that I didn't say you'd necessarily want to eliminate *all*
> potential CLI functionality, and made a point of saying that you might
> possibly condone a secondary text-based interface like a macro system.

There is a big difference actually ... has to do with reading english.

"native GUI support as a general and primary user interface" means EXACTLY
what is says, and not a bit more ... the primary user interface. Nothing
I said implied that the CLI would be removed, the implication is that it
becomes secondary if the GUI is primary.

> > > If GNOME and KDE are your primary examples of GUI design in the Unix
> > > world, I can certainly see how you think that nobody has been doing
> > > anything useful with GUI design in the Unix world for the last twenty
> > > years.  I'd think so too, if those were my examples.
> > 
> > You have to understand what's wrong with a design before you can do better,
> > as well as understand what works well. You are incredibly naive to belive
> > that advancement comes without studing both the good and bad first, or to
> > argue that doing so somehow embraces those failed choices.
>
> Where are you getting this stuff?

>From you own arguments putting words in my mount by picking arguments I didn't
assert or make.

>   1. I never said I believe that "advancement comes without studing[sic]
>   both the good and the bad first", or anything that even hinted at such
>   a conclusion.

True ... just as I never said that I was a proponent of several technologies
you went off on a rant and charged me with pushing.

>   2. I never argued that "doing so somehow embraces those failed
>   choices," either.  You're just making crap up out of thin air here.
>   Remember the bit about irony and smell?

The crap, is just yours ... as you quote below, I was just responding to your
half baked assumptions.

>   3. Something you *did* say:
>
>     You also need to clearly understand the fundamentals of GUI based
>     architectures, which requires solid study of the Plato, Alto, Lisa,
>     evolution of the Apple OS's, as well as MSWin and X11/Gnome/KDE.
>
>   I made an assumption, here -- that you were not saying we should
>   study X11, GNOME, or KDE for *good* qualities.  You also said:

And that assumption was wrong, and you proceeded to rant based on that
assumption puting missplaced words in my mount. ... your crap, not mine.

What I said was that they needed to be studied, citing them as prior art.
The implication is that they be studied for both their successes and failures.

>     
>     UI and operating system innovation stopped dead for 30 years ...
>     failing to advance the art as hordes of programmers set out to clone
>     what should have been a dieing[sic] UNIX/X11 standard, and kept it
>     revived for 20 years past it's point of innovation on a desktop.
>
>   So . . . unless my assumption was mistaken, and you were actually
>   saying *good* things about X11, GNOME, and KDE, you *did* indeed say
>   that nobody has been doing anything useful with GUI design in the Unix
>   world for the last twenty years, and you *did* use GNOME and KDE as
>   your examples thereof.

Your assumption is both right and wrong ... there are both good and bad
things about each of those technologies. That you assume less, and rant
about your missplaced assumptions is your problem.

> > > I find it interesting that you dismiss Linux and FreeBSD development so
> > > quickly, in light of your reference to things like HURD, the MIT
> > > Exokernel, and so on.  After all, such projects are still in the realm of
> > > academia rather than in that of widespread, commodity OS use, largely
> > > because of some practical failings that nobody has managed to figure out
> > > how to solve yet (performance being a big one).
> > 
> > performance is exactly the problem with the current Linux architecture, in
> > that it greatly exceeds the 4 and 8 way caches, with excessive aliasing and
> > faults to memory. That by the way, was ALSO the problem we saw with the
> > direction that UNIX was taking 20 years ago. Huge scaling problems. Huge
> > problems with minor code changes, or compiler changes, stacking the aliasing
> > up unprodictibly resulting in performances differences of 3X or more. That
> > was with a CPU clock to Memory cycle time ratio of 18. Today that ratio is
> > better than 250. It was masked for a while with Moore's law, which has come
> > to and end more or less. Now it's time to start cleaning up the code paths
> > and architectural problems which are creating the performance bounds.
>
> So . . . slower systems are the answer to poor performance?  I never
> would have guessed.

How did you ever come up with such a half baked conclusion? Since you want
to be the expert, and have a difficult time with authority, please enlighten
us.

Amdahl's law gives us a clear picture of where to look for performance gains.
When cache faults to memory are 250 times slower than cpu cycles, and there
are a lot of cache faults, then continuing to increase processor performance
yeilds increasingly smaller performance gains. That has been the state for
some time. To fix the performance problems, we need to address cache faults
to memory. That problem is the direct result of many layers of indirection
in the kernel and poor data locality -- a software architecture problem.

What I said above, is that those of us that are experts in UNIX system performance
grew concerned about this problem back in UNIX SVR4 days, and that problem
is worse with Linux today ... and with hardware today when the cpu clock
to memory cycle time ratio is even higher.

> > > Ultimately, slimming things down to the level of the HURD or Exokernel
> > > level might be The One True Way.  The hybrid Mach/BSD kernel of
> > > OpenDarwin might be the next stepping stone.
> > 
> > Clearly expanding on the UNIX SVR5 bloat in the way that current linux
> > releases have, is the wrong direction.

> Maybe so.  Maybe you've just completely ignored my discussion of the
> Linux kernel architecture where the traditional monolithic kernel design
> approach has been gentled a bit by kernel modules.  Maybe you've just
> completely failed to explain how SVR5 bloat has anything at all to do
> with BSD Unix, too.

Actually I didn't ignore it at all. I was clear that it's increasing size
and number of layers of indirection is causing serious problems with cache
and memory aliasing resulting in excessive and unpredicatable cach to memory
faulting. This "bloat" is a serious problem.


> > 
> > > In the meantime, modular
> > > monolithic kernel design such as that used in the Linux and FreeBSD
> > > kernels seems to be the de facto Right Answer to getting things done
> > > while we wait for the technological revolution to overcome its own
> > > limitations.
> > 
> > yeah ... as shining examples of what not to do.

> You're long on name-dropping and insults to any and all developers
> working on open source OS design that aren't building their OSes around
> something like the MIT Exokernel, but pretty short on saying anything
> substantive.  You're also long on (apocryphal, at best) accusations of
> misrepresentation, but short on accurate representation of what I have
> said in return.

I'm sorry that you are having a difficult time with being an objective
Linux evangelist. Everything has both it's good and bad points. Being
open about linux faults is never an insult as you are suggesting.

The insults have been yours, mostly because you hastily jump to conclusions
and are frustrated that someone dares to be objectively candid about the
faults in the current Linux product and it's direction. You have decided to
be openly sarcastic and less than civil, while lacking the ability to openly
discuss the problems and provide your own suggestions for improving the areas
that need it.

I use Linux as my desktop, have for quite a few years. Being objective about
it's good and bad features is necessary, and desirable, to direct it's evolution.

I did my several years on the UNIX standards committee, even released code into
the public domain so it could be included in the standard ... file locking.
If you have problems with that first hand knowledge and experience with both
the people and the technology .... get over it. I've done my 20 years as a
systems programmer, and with that comes experience thats invaluable in any
discussion about where to proceed in the future.

My direct observation, and suggestion, is that we need to either start over, or
seriously overhaul Linux to address fitting it's working sets into the available
technologies. Dennis and Ken decided to start over for a number of reasons, with
their Plan 9 (see the Plan 9 FAQ: What Unix Problems Were Too Deep to Fix?)
RMS felt the same way, in doing HURD.

There is a problem with equating "Linux the OS" with "Linux the Distribution".
It's the distribution that makes what most people consider Linux great. The
OS, however has some serious problems for a number of application areas. Ditto
with some toolset areas, which we can also discuss if you can be objective.

> I am unimpressed.  You think you can do better?  Show me the code.

That goes both ways ... show me your code and experience to solve the problems
presented ... since you so passionately wish to discredit my experience and
observations.

You have a strong problem with others experience and position of authority,
yet ... you so freely claim that without any credientials whatsoever. So far,
you haven't made any suggestions about how to improve Linux. Just personal
attacks to discredit and discourage any discussion which includes faults with
the Linux OS and Distribution.

Or ... as I suggested, maybe it's just time to agree to disagree.

John



More information about the NCLUG mailing list