Linus Torvalds: 'Linux is Bloated'

Impulse said:
I think you both have a point... And yea, while for most applications it might actually be simpler on Linux, when you do run into an unlisted app the process tends to be completely out of the reach of an average user. Windows might be more cumbersome in general, but I can't remember the last time I had to open up a console to install something.
Click to expand...

I can't think of a single app in the past two years that I've *had* to compile/manually install. I've done it, but there's always also been a version in the repos. It's hard to find something that isn't in there.

However after reading some more comments, it seems I (as well as a few others it seems) misunderstood the article; Linus is talking of the kernel, not the entire distro, and in a way I agree with him: there are a LOT of useless modules that are part of generic kernels.
 
djBon2112 said:
I can't think of a single app in the past two years that I've *had* to compile/manually install. I've done it, but there's always also been a version in the repos. It's hard to find something that isn't in there.

However after reading some more comments, it seems I (as well as a few others it seems) misunderstood the article; Linus is talking of the kernel, not the entire distro, and in a way I agree with him: there are a LOT of useless modules that are part of generic kernels.
Click to expand...

Well linux is the kernel
 
Maybe he just doesnt like the fact other people are messing
with HIS software now?

Ya think?
 
msny said:
Maybe he just doesnt like the fact other people are messing
with HIS software now?

Ya think?
Click to expand...

Now? The Linux kernel has been developed by MANY people since pretty much the very beginning.
 
Keiichi said:
Not true OSX does not have the bloat that Windows or Linux has. Same can be said for AmigaOS, NeXT, Solaris, BeOS. It's all about controlling the hardware environment and concentrating on core functions of the OS. In a controlled environment Linux is very lean and mean, It's just that it's trying to be imitate instead of innovate.
Click to expand...

Windows 2008 Server Core install. No bloat.
 
eeyrjmr said:
Well linux is the kernel
Click to expand...

I find the semantics of this "debate" infuriating. Linux is both the kernel, and a convenient name for the entire family of OSes that run that kernel. If you mean the kernel, say "Linux kernel". I don't see why it's even a topic of discussion. /pointless rant :p
 
4saken said:
Windows 2008 Server Core install. No bloat.
Click to expand...

But what can you do with it? One task.

That's the problem with calling something (especially an OS install) "bloated": what is bloat? As another user said, one person's killer app is another's bloat. If the OS is functional and performs well then it isn't "bloated", even though it may have a ton of apps.

The only "bloated" OSes I've ever seen are the manufacturer preinstalled version of Windows that come on new PCs ;)
 
I can easily fit Windows XP on a 5 MB flash drive. I see no reason why we can't unbloat most of the OSes today.
 
With there being sub 100mb linux distributions that still work on pretty much any hardware, I really don't see the problem. Sure its getting larger and more demanding as time goes on, but thats ok! we have hard drives that surpass a GB now ;) and processors with more power than we know what to do with. We can afford to give up a bit for more compatibility and ease of use these days.

I do understand in a server enviornment where you many many servers. What may be considered a small amount on just one server can start to have a real dollar amount tied to it when you start multiplying it across many servers.
 
bfellow said:
I can easily fit Windows XP on a 5 MB flash drive. I see no reason why we can't unbloat most of the OSes today.
Click to expand...

More hardware, more feature, more everything. If you want to remain in the stone age, be our guest. Linus will happily join you.
 
I don't think I give a shit with 1 TB hard drives at prices below $100 and memory prices being so very low for so very much capacity.
 
msny said:
Maybe he just doesnt like the fact other people are messing
with HIS software now?

Ya think?
Click to expand...
NKDietrich said:
Now? The Linux kernel has been developed by MANY people since pretty much the very beginning.
Click to expand...

msny, you know HE released under the GPL right, and the whole point of that license is to encourage others to "mess[] with HIS software", and that even before he GPLed it, he encouraged this?

I agree with Azhar. Computers are getting faster, more storage is available for cheaper than ever before. A DVD burner costs you $20 and the disks are pennies each, for 4.5 GB of storage. The days of single-digit-megabyte sized OSes (or even kernels) is over. They're pointless, unless a tiny footprint strokes your e-penis. Much like what was said when Vista was released, if you have RAM, and you're not using it, it's wasted. Same with drive space.

And that's the end of my contribution to this discussion. My opinion has been made known ;)
 
We moved away from Linux due to bloat years ago on HardOCP. FreeBSD baby....still a Gentoo box for the forums though that works very very well with a great admin taking care of it.
 
djBon2112 said:
But what can you do with it? One task.

That's the problem with calling something (especially an OS install) "bloated": what is bloat? As another user said, one person's killer app is another's bloat. If the OS is functional and performs well then it isn't "bloated", even though it may have a ton of apps.

The only "bloated" OSes I've ever seen are the manufacturer preinstalled version of Windows that come on new PCs ;)
Click to expand...

I agree.

But its the same for any OS. Obvious Linux/BSD/now Windows 2008 core, at least give you an option to start from basics and only add what you want need.

Rather than having to tear down the bloat from a preinstalled/preconfigured OS to what you need.
 
Its to be expected when you are trying to accommodate thousands of hw configurations out of the box, of course all those modules are gonna bloat the kernel.

This is why Apple keeps OSX on their own hardware.
 
bacon said:
Its to be expected when you are trying to accommodate thousands of hw configurations out of the box, of course all those modules are gonna bloat the kernel.

This is why Apple keeps OSX on their own hardware.
Click to expand...

That's not why Apple keep OSX on their own hardware. It's more of a result of keeping OSX on their own hardware.
 
djBon2112 said:
I find the semantics of this "debate" infuriating. Linux is both the kernel, and a convenient name for the entire family of OSes that run that kernel. If you mean the kernel, say "Linux kernel". I don't see why it's even a topic of discussion. /pointless rant :p
Click to expand...

This article is Linus's comments about the Linux kernel source code. This entire discussion has pretty much been off topic since the first post.

Of key importance are the rest of his quotes:

"Uh, I'd love to say we have a plan," Torvalds replied to applause and chuckles from the audience. "I mean, sometimes it's a bit sad that we are definitely not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel that I envisioned 15 years ago...The kernel is huge and bloated, and our icache footprint is scary. I mean, there is no question about that. And whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse."

He maintains, however, that stability is not a problem. "I think we've been pretty stable," he said. "We are finding the bugs as fast as we're adding them — even though we're adding more code."

Bottomley took this to mean that Torvalds views that the current level of integration is acceptable under those terms. But Mr. Linux corrected him. "No. I'm not saying that," Torvalds answered. "Acceptable and avoidable are two different things. It's unacceptable but it's also probably unavoidable."
Click to expand...

InorganicMatter said:
And therein lies the problem. Linux used to be cool when it was a server OS. The big push for a Linux Desktop has done nothing but bloat Linux to an unstable mess (which is still totally unsuited for a desktop).
Posted via [H] Mobile Device
Click to expand...

1) Linux isn't unstable
2) Linux was a desktop OS *BEFORE* it was a server OS. It was originally designed for desktops, and was used as a desktop OS before it was a server OS
 
The old AtariST operating system was basically CPM86 with a graphic interface on top, and it was... 64KB. Compared to that, Linux etc are bloated beyond all recognition.

What does Linus suggest doing about the situation? A diet?
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
What does Linus suggest doing about the situation? A diet?
Click to expand...

Does anything even need to be done? Nobody uses statically compiled kernels unless they configure it themselves for their hardware, and if you use modules it really doesn't matter that there are 10 million modules you don't have to install in the running kernel if you don't need them. The core kernel is still fairly slim, it can run well on small embedded devices with just a few MB of RAM and even less flash. They may be adding more complex process and i/o scheduling and whatnot, but most of this is made tunable in the kernel configuration.

It seems to me that this is like calling the Windows kernel bloated because there are 10 million vendor drivers available that can be loaded into kernel space.
 
It should be pointed out that most of the Linux kernel "bloat" is hardware drivers. They've been making up the majority of new kernel additions for at least the last year. That's why so many webcams and wireless NICs (for just a couple of examples) that didn't work even six months ago now work and I doubt many would want to sacrifice that for a tiny bit of disk space.

There are performance regressions at various points in the kernel, but I would argue that they're mostly balanced by performance improvements elsewhere and that usually when they do exist, they're minor regressions. Overall, if you look at Linux kernel development it's remarkable how well it continues to perform for how many different abilities it has.

Most of the bloat and performance issues (*cough*flashsucks*cough) really lie in user-space apps and in particular the desktop environments that are now common. Gnome and KDE incorporate a ton of useful functionality and I like Gnome because the interface usually just gets out of the way, but they account for the majority of resource usage. That is why you can easily find other distros (lets say Fluxbuntu) that will run on hardware XP even would suffocate on.

Ideally I would like to see FVWM-Crystal become easier to configure, if it was then I would dump the more common DEs in a heartbeat as it is both blazing fast and a lot slicker than other lightweight WMs I've tried.

dyzophoria said:
wasnt (a) also the downside of vista? :D
Click to expand...

Even on the most bloated desktop environment Linux runs far more efficiently than Vista ever has. Don't tell me that I'm full of it either, try running Vista on 1GB of RAM, it is not pleasant whatever version you're using.

In comparison, Ubuntu (one of the more friendly and more bloated distros) runs very well on 1GB of RAM.

ferrisnox said:
No one wants to come out and say it but I will.... look at the default supplemental programs installed with Windows 7 vs a typical Linux install... of course Linux includes more 3rd party apps... not necessarily a problem...but why???


Here's why.... for a new Linux user or install... its a pain in the ass to install certain linux apps and have them functioning...vs how easy it is for windows. People can accidentally install stuff to windows its so easy... you never accidentally install stuff on linux.... feel free to disagree.

Yo Linus, I'm really happy for you....I"m gonna let you finish....but Windows is one of the easiest installs of all time.
Click to expand...

Only certain programs and most of them not. I'll readily admit that in quite a few cases, keeping up with the most recent major release of programs is easier, but for the vast majority of users who don't do that anyways the Linux package managers are a far better alternative.

The major distros (Fedora, Suse, Ubuntu) tend to have everything a "typical user" would need in them and to a large extent, what programs they don't are available in the appropriate .deb or .rpm files.

Source files aren't much fun I'll admit, but then again then IS [H], are you guys really going to look at a .tar.gz file and run away in fright? :p

Serpico said:
The package manager in Ubuntu is really great. The closest thing to it on any other platform is the App Store with the iPhone/iPod Touch, maybe something like Steam as well (I say "maybe" because it isn't a base application in the OS). Having a centralized platform where applications can be found, downloaded, and kept up to date, is a great thing, I wish there was something like it on Windows and OS X.
Click to expand...

This. It's not even so much about ease of installation, although I do love being able to hunt down a dozen programs and install them all in one fell swoop (and uninstall them all like that too if need be). The greatest single advantage to repositories is that they allow for you to simultaneously update all software installed on the operating system.
 
djBon2112 said:
I find the semantics of this "debate" infuriating. Linux is both the kernel, and a convenient name for the entire family of OSes that run that kernel. If you mean the kernel, say "Linux kernel". I don't see why it's even a topic of discussion. /pointless rant :p
Click to expand...

Except this entire debate is about the kernel

your point... out the window
 
djBon2112 said:
But... didn't you move back go Linux (Gentoo) *because* of a number of issues with FreeBSD?
Click to expand...
[H]ardOCP != [H]ardforums.
What he probably means is the actual main news site is still running on FreeBSD but the forums are now on a separate (virtual?) server running gentoo (woohoo!!!!!)

djBon2112 said:
Also, eeyrjmr I know the point (at least in this thread) is out the window, but it's something I wanted to say :cool:
Click to expand...
in general I agree.
There was a thread in the linux section a few years ago where someone went on the "LINUX IS A KERNEL" rant, it kinda backfired (esp when other common such common terms were shown).

and stop trying to distract everyone from your point which is still sailing out the window ;)
 
I'm getting tired of this "bloat" complaint. Seriously, what's so bad about an OS having extra features available that you don't necessarily need? Just because you don't need something doesn't mean it hurts for it to be there - extra features only require extra hard drive space, and today's drives have more than enough for everyone.

I hate people who install Windows (or Linux) only to disable all of it's features, then proceed to complain later when they need to do something and they uninstalled or disabled a feature that would have helped them do it more efficiently.

Hey guys, I think I'm going to complain to Intel for not making it easy for me to remove the hardware virtualization silicon from my processor. Because it's there, and I don't use it, therefore it's bad. :rolleyes:
 
eeyrjmr said:
[H]ardOCP != [H]ardforums.
What he probably means is the actual main news site is still running on FreeBSD but the forums are now on a separate (virtual?) server running gentoo (woohoo!!!!!)
Click to expand...

Aah, makes sense. I just kinda figured the entire site (OCP + forums) were on one set of servers.
 
HOCP4ME said:
I'm getting tired of this "bloat" complaint. Seriously, what's so bad about an OS having extra features available that you don't necessarily need? Just because you don't need something doesn't mean it hurts for it to be there - extra features only require extra hard drive space, and today's drives have more than enough for everyone.
[...]
Hey guys, I think I'm going to complain to Intel for not making it easy for me to remove the hardware virtualization silicon from my processor. Because it's there, and I don't use it, therefore it's bad. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Linus was talking about kernel bloat from an architectural standpoint. Bloat makes it more difficult to maintain and develop, which as a kernel developer is obviously a priority.

As an ASIC engineer, you're second point I can amusingly agree with. It cuts down on engineering effort to remove unused portions of logic.
 
Bloat also means that internal kernel API changes are /very/ hard todo
 
HOCP4ME said:
I'm getting tired of this "bloat" complaint. Seriously, what's so bad about an OS having extra features available that you don't necessarily need? Just because you don't need something doesn't mean it hurts for it to be there - extra features only require extra hard drive space, and today's drives have more than enough for everyone.

I hate people who install Windows (or Linux) only to disable all of it's features, then proceed to complain later when they need to do something and they uninstalled or disabled a feature that would have helped them do it more efficiently.

Hey guys, I think I'm going to complain to Intel for not making it easy for me to remove the hardware virtualization silicon from my processor. Because it's there, and I don't use it, therefore it's bad. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well it really depends on the end user effects the bloat causes. Vista's bloat caused its RAM usage to drastically increase, for example, requiring people who upgraded to buy more RAM. The bloat Linus is talking about, on the other hand, causes the kernel to be a couple of MB on disk, big whoop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top