[Gllug] Linux 2.4.10 is out with better VM

[Les Till]

Bruce Richardson wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 04:16:59PM +0100, Christian Smith wrote:
> > On Sat, 6 Oct 2001, Bruce Richardson wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, Oct 06, 2001 at 12:31:30AM +0100, David Irvine wrote:
> > >> I'd also be interested to know if they  have vixed the VM bugs since i'm
> > >> still contemplating going back to 2.2.18
> > >
> > >Make that 2.2.19, .18 has some issues.  Must say, 2.4.x seems to be
> > >taking much longer than 2.2.x did to settle down.  The difference
> > >between stable and development kernels seems to have blurred (from the
> > >stability point of view, anyway).  I suppose it's a legacy of 2.4's
> > >troubled gestation.
> >
> > All a legacy of a VM system that was derived from the origional x86 model.
> > In VM terms, Linux is where 4.3BSD was, which had a VM system based on the
> > VAX, and generalised to try to make it 'portable' to other architectures.
> 
> That's the current culprit, though I was more thinking about how the 2.4
> development process was hung up.  Linus prefers to work on the
> development kernels and usually hands over the new stable kernel to Alan
> Cox early on.  This time round, though, Alan was too busy working on 2.2
> and Linus had to maintain 2.4 for longer than he liked.  To quote him:
> 
> " The problem is that I really enjoy the development process which is
> why I'm always on the development kernels. I'm not really the kind of
> guy whois good at maintenance. Problem is that when you're getting ready
> for a new release, you have to get down into maintenance mode. I need
> somebody to keep me on the straight and narrow and I didn't have
> somebody to keep me on the straight and arrow because Alan Cox was busy.
> It's purely a psychological one. The only real problem was that I was
> allowing patches that I should not have. It's not that I can't say no.
> They were good patches but Alan Cox always maintained a list of
> outstanding issues so I knew whether a patch was required or not.
> Without somebody keeping track of these issues, it was kind of hard for
> me to say no. "
> 
> This has left 2.4 with more issues to deal with than usual.
> 
> > Is this stuff worth doing a GLLUG talk on? Would people be interested in
> > the VM architecture of various OSes?
> 
> I think a lot of it was covered in a talk a while back, though I know
> quite a few people didn't take it all in.
 I seem to remember that, at the end of the talk on memory mangement, it
was 
suggested that another session would be in order, at a later date. This
was
because time did not allow for a full description.
> 
> --
> Bruce
> 
> The ice-caps are melting, tra-la-la-la.  All the world is drowning,
> tra-la-la-la-la.  -- Tiny Tim.
> 
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug