Linux Kernel Grows Past 15 Million Lines of Code

Now that is a lot of code :s

So now Linux is bloatware?

I came to joke about this. ::Shakes fist::

Yep, Linux is bloatware today. Linus Torvalds confirmed this some years ago. It is not slim and fast, it has dropped 10% performance since the latest versions, Intel Corp says:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/ [...] ated_huge/

Oh my, 15 million lines of code. Still pales in comparison to Windows though - which is good, given Linux's focus on weight.

So they have about one user for every million lines of code, then?

The fate of all software, always adding features and end up bloated. Nothing new sadly!

Give it time and it will be like Windows (which isn't slow really, my Windows 7 clean install boots in almost the same amount of time as my Ubuntu clean install). But that will be the fate of Linux, or any OS, if they wish to be easier to use and more widely adopted, they must make installs easier and to do that as many systems must work on first install as possible and that means bloated code. Make fun of Windows all you want, but MS already knew that to make things simple the software had to get bigger.

So what he really needs to do is make a new OS.

Keep in mind you are comparing a kernel to a full-blown OS.

Maybe they should drop support for older hardware starting with 3.3 or at least fork it somehow as a legacy kernel. Because both new AND old hardware are impacted (older hardware more, obviously).

Anyway, if you don't need support for your Sony Memory Stick or HP printer and any other specific modules, simply build your own kernel without them. Using a customized kernel really isn't as difficult as it sounds.

You can either have a light and fast OS that's difficult to use, or a bloated OS that's easier to use.

To increase the amount of market share, you need an idiot-friendly software because not everyone are computer experts...

Well, not really.
It's just Linux, which is the kernel compared to Windows, which has all the windows systems and all the rest.
A Linux distro has the GNU system, X-kernels, file explorers and so on.
If you compare the whole Windows 98 which had 18 million lines of code it is really bad that just the kernel for Linux has 15 million lines, which is in the same ballpark.

I mean to say X-windows system or whatever it is called now, not x-kernel.

How many read the second sentence of the article where it said that 75% of the code is for "drivers, file systems and architecture-specific code"? I.e., 75% of it isn't even loaded in by typical users when running, and much of that isn't even installed. How one gets to "bloated" is a bit of a mystery.

Complete CleanUp the comments and blank lines.

There is good news though. I mean, if it ever got to the point Linux was "too" large, large chunks of its code base are portable, like its scheduling algorithms and implementations of its VFS and most of its assembly support for processors.

I do think that the Linux project should be split into separate projects for a scheduler / memory manager, VFS, device manager, and system interface. Each of them could be like what X windowing is right now - an unofficial but almost always used piece of the puzzle.

Just the other day I was talking to a group of hot women about Linux. They were all like "yeah, Linux rocks! I won't sleep with a man unless he's running Linux!". And I was like "hey baby, check out my rooted Android phone. It's all Linux-ey and stuff". And she was like "damn, let's go back to your place!". I totally scored.

Probably it's a bad idea to cite Torvalds. This guy is brilliant and at the same time very strict, which relieves us his idealistic nature. As the father of the Linux kernel he thinks that many things should be changed. This is good, and not bad! It means that Linux is still progressing and is being developed. Same thing is happening with X11, as ultimately it's going to get replaced by the new Wayland server.

Windows on the other side is still less than useless, and I the new Windows 8 will make matters even worse, bringing new and exciting ways to kill Windows.

Linux had phenomenal influence on IT industry, thanks to open source concept. But from the technical point of view the its design was far from elegant and with old fashioned monolithic kernel was predestined to become bloatware. Linux has one thing in common with Windows - it didn't succeed in its niche because of any technical merits but simply because it was free (or in case of windows for being commercial). Anyone remembers famous Tanenbaum-Torvalds Debate ?

Yeah, and remember that the only micro-kernel design that has succeeded is Mac OSX, and even that isn't a true micro-kernel, if I remember correctly, but rather a hybrid.

You can build your own kernel and set the options to compile only the features you need thereby reducing the code that is used on your machine. Try doing that with Windows.

Most people including myself are happy with the bloated, all-purpose kernel.

The last time I had to rebuild a kernel was while trying to get wireless support. rebuilding a kernel was not in my plans for that day. So, a bloated kernel is good news for me.

FLAMING PENGUIN by FreeBSD.
Whole penguin, 2 sliced onions, 2 sliced green or red bell peppers,1 cup olive oil,1 bottle white wine,
1 teaspoon salt, 1/2 teaspoon ground black pepper, 5 cloves garlic, 1/4 teaspoon chili powder, Bay Leaves and 3 sharp skewers. Slice penguin into 1-inch cubes. Mix spices in with olive oil. Marinade cubes in spice mix, onions peppers garlic and the wine. Douse lightly with brandy before serving.

The reason why Linus likes monolithic kernels (in his own words) is because "it's easier to implement". That is true, but well executed microkernels are technically vastly superior and worth the effort. That's a proven fact and there are numerous examples in practice. I suspect back in the days, as a student he didn't have enough programming capacity and knowledge to handle such a task. Today, of course, he would defend his baby that made him famous at all costs. You can praise linux as a movement, but for it's technical quality it is definitely not much better then windows.

Almost no one uses microkernels. Most OSes comprise of hybrid or monolithic kernels.

"Anyone remembers famous Tanenbaum-Torvalds Debate?"

I wasn't familiar with that, but reading it 10 years later Tanenbaum sure does come off as a tool.

There are many pure microkernel OSs, but of course they are not mainstream, the same way Ferrari is not mainstream. Linux kernel however is not even a hybrid, just an ancient monster monolithic architecture. But then again it's ok for the price

than they also make retarded concessions like in the explorer for files, i can open any file by clicking anywhere on a Column, a feature i despise as moving files is so much harder than it needs to be now. or taking out gif support... that was really stupid, the the ability to easily tile windows in favor of the crappyer substitute areo snap (i do not like it but i use it), or not being able to easily see the size of folders, but those are just the hardest things for me to live without in windows 7

Micro kernels have their out set of problems, namely IPC is a big performance nightmare.

QNX is a good example of a modern micro kernel OS. It's performance is rather solid and it's used in various industries.

Micro Kernels require lots of standards to be written and maintained, otherwise it wouldn't be possible for multiple parts to interact with each other. You can't do that efficiently "by committee" and none of the big players want to invest that kind of money.

IPC performance was a problem only with badly implemented microkernels. Nowadays there is no single argument in favor of monoliths. It's just an excuse for programming laziness. Even Linus admits that Linux is going to degenerate into big mess but what he won't admit is that the problem is of fundamental architectural nature. Good microkernels are initially hard to implement but once done they can healthy scale indefinitely.

Really? The Kernel is 15M lines of code? Really?