Linus Torvalds: 'Linux is bloated'
Linus Torvalds, founder of the Linux kernel, made a startling comment at LinuxCon in Portland, Ore., on Monday: "Linux is bloated." While the open-source community has long pointed the finger at Microsoft's Windows as bloated, it appears that with success has come added heft, heft that makes Linux "huge and scary now," according to Torvalds.
Is "Tux" getting pudgy?
No. Of course not. It has simply grown as its adoption has expanded. This is the problem with success: you get pulled into an ever-widening array of tasks.
So, while Torvalds declared "We are definitely not the streamlined, hyper-efficient kernel I envisioned when I started writing Linux," Linux is also not the limited-purpose/function kernel he initially envisioned. It's powering everything from corporate data centers to over half of all new smartphones shipped, as the Linux Foundation's Jim Zemlin noted in his opening keynote.
Even so, it begs a question: will Linux become more like Windows as it becomes even more successful?
I suspect that successful open-source projects, generally, will increasingly look more like Microsoft as they grow. Simultaneously, Microsoft is slowly learning from open source, and I think it will capitulate, too.
Will we meet in the middle? Probably. For now, Linux may be getting a bit chubby, but that's likely cause for celebration, not hand-wringing.
Update @ 6:43 A.M. on Tuesday, September 22, 2009:
One thing that I forgot to mention, but which is critical to the success of Linux, is that there really is no such thing as monolithic "Linux." Linux is highly modular and can be trimmed down/beefed up to fit a wide variety of applications...on the developers' terms, not Red Hat's, Novell's, Canonical's, etc.
So, unlike Windows, which can only be what Microsoft dictates, Linux can truly be all things to all people, as "fat" or as "skinny" as the developer wants it to be. Ubuntu is obese compared to sub-100 KB uClinux distributions, for example. Both serve different, and useful, purposes.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
In a nutshell: just striving for modularity makes no sense. Integration has its place too at certain times in the same environment. Both can even coexist in different spots at the same time.
*deletes feed*
linux runs on most of the toaster market share also, according to my sources. (citation needed)
regardless it is objectively agreed that linux was not originally intended for a good portion of its current applications, maybe this will lead to a widely accepted kernel fork, or dieting tool
I guess Linus finally pulled his head out of the sand.
That depends...
If you use the default SMP-enabled distro-supplied kernel, yeah it's gonna be kinda bloated.
OTOH, if you know your computer well enough, you can rip into the kernel at 'make config' and tear out a whole lot of stuff that quite frankly, you don't really need (e.g. if you have only SATA drives, what do you need the IDE support for?)
"if you know your computer well enough, you can rip into the kernel at 'make config' and tear out a whole lot of stuff that quite frankly, you don't really need (e.g. if you have only SATA drives, what do you need the IDE support for?)"
I guess that is true for someone that buys h/w parts from tigerdirect, newegg, etc., and downloads linux kernel and builds the OS from the scratch. But for general purpose user that walks into best buy and walmart, THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. If Linux wants to stand shoulder to shoulder in MS land, they need to meet the needs of general purpose user that just wants to use their computer to play games, browse internet or work on some documents.
I think you're missing the point. If you have to go in and manually have to start trimming down the fat to customize it to an acceptable level, then it fails for the 'it just works' test.
For geeks, this is all fine and dandy. To get general desk side acceptance, it's a serious limitation. Apple did this quite successfully by insulating the user from the OS and I think this is what needs to happen here as well.
Except, the average user doesn't need to skim it down. It's only for geeks who want there computers to run speedy fast, and are able to maintain that.
You want slimmed down try DSL. You want a full featured OS that has everything 7 has plus a ton more try Fedora or SuSE.
Oh please! When was the last time Windows was kind enough to unload all the unnecessary bs you don't need when you just wanted to play a few games and browse the Internet. Windows would be do great to have the same kind of kernel config during its install that Linux has for kernel compilation.
One thing I have waited for is a Linux installer that would scan my system and build a kernel that matched my system... without me having to know all the arcanum to compile the kernel myself. It is lazy, but it would be very cool. That would help cut down on the kernel bloat and would really put Linux leagues ahead of Microsoft.
The question is, how do I do it with MS?
I'm capable of doing it, I know what I'm doing, give me a tool do cut Windows tiny and skinny.
Actually he has said that the reason for Linux initially was as a non-commercial replacement for MINIX. Not sure that he had a streamlined, hyper-efficient kernel in mind at that point.
To the hell with your streamlined kernel.
All I want is working sound.
How hard it is to get it right???
2. If you have a soundcard that doesn't work, blame the hardware vendor for either not providing drivers or not providing enough information so that others can do it.
It's pretty much impossible to do anything with pulse - except for watching YouTube.
It's horrible for video playback - especially HD. And is not so great for music too. As if ALSA's own jitter wasn't enough.
ALSA is mostly fine, but doesn't support switching of cards on the fly - restart of applications is required. And that sucks.
> 2. If you have a soundcard that doesn't work, blame the hardware vendor for either not providing drivers or not providing enough information so that others can do it.
My cards are supported for 5+ years now. Only KDE 4.3 now has managed to properly show me all my sounds cards and also used them the way I have configured. Gnome (Pulse, under Ubuntu) still dumbly uses soundcard on my MB while generally I configure to use PCI card as a default. Gnome's sound configuration simply defunct - whatever I change there, it has no effect.
ALSA works fine, but it's far from being any sort of decent framework. Developers complain about overall quality: from lacking API to the poor sound quality. Me as user complain about lack of trivial features. Though poor sound quality under some circumstances sometimes bugs me too.
>>>>Actually, they did provide drivers... for Windows. Sorry, but I don't see any sense in BLAMING the hardware vendor for not providing drivers for a non-standard (and, IMO, substandard) platform. I dealt with another Linux fanboy who said the same thing about USB, not knowing that it's all USB cards and onboard subsystems, not just mine. He didn't realize that Linux always has a problem if you strain the USB for 3-4 days straight. He told me that, if the subsystem on my Compaq Presario (yah, I have a REALLY obscure unit) didn't work properly under Linux, then the hardware was trash. I told him, "RIDICULOUS!!!" Even Windows 2000 can handle my USB subsystem just fine, even SP4 with NO subsequent updates. That argument flies straight out the Windows (pun intended).
@pentest:
Don't get me wrong. It's not the fault of Canonical, Novell, Red Hat, or anyone else that there are over 350 flavors of Linux, while not so much as one of the major distros holds so much as 1% of the market. But it's not the fault of the hardware vendors, either. And it's not because they're so "proprietary," it's because they don't work for free.
Personally, I don't know how "bloated" Linux is, unless we're talking about KDE4; it's getting kind of heavy. But Gnome still works great. Only problems I have are: 1) I can't leave Linux running 24/7 with a USB mouse 2) I can't trust Linux with a flashdrive; I'll copy data and then pull it right back out 3) Suspend mode is useless, as is sleep with Mac OS X. The machine won't stay asleep unless I unplug all peripherals, close all running apps, and log off. Again, RIDICULOUS!!!
1) you have to unmount drives before removing them
2) linux is the kernel, not RedHat, Ubuntu, or SuSE, those are all just user-lands that sit on top of a tiny linux platform, it's easy to write a driver for all Linux distros, just write it for the damn kernel and EVERYONE can use it.
3)The only issue is not having the hardware manufacturers provide drivers, it's having no detailed information about the hardware so that it's impossible for the Open Source community to write drivers of their own.
For example: Nvidia provides a proprietary driver for the Linux kernel and X.org, this driver only works on x86, leaving all powerpc (pre-2006 macintosh and PS3) users with the shoddy vesa driver and no 3d acceleration from cards that they bought, whereas AMD released all the programming information for the HD series cards; resulting in the steady development of the opensource RadeonHD driver that works on all platforms.
and your use of the word 'fanboy' is burning with irony
Fedora 11 works wonderfully on my Thinkpad. My wireless, sound, usb devices, suspend/hibernate, and my intel graphics accelerator are all working in fantastic order.
Sorry, but I don't see any point in dumping and puking over Linux because you bought non-standard (and in my opinion sub-standard) hardware.
How the hell do you strain a subsystem(daisy-chain???)? I have a powermac g3 running Debian, and it has been for a few weeks without a single shutdown, and the USB microsoft-brand(logitech) intellimouse is working without any issues.
on the topic of your qualitative assessment of FOSS, can you tell me why it is that the majority of cinematic renderfarms, scientific clusters, supercomputers, smartphones, routers, mainframes, and webhosts all run FOSS (Linux, BSD, etc.) and why google is creating another Linux based operating system for consumption of the population at large if the Linuxes really are such sub-standard systems to use?
He even didn't get that the drivers that come with Windows are still provided by the manufacturer even if they're on the Windows disc so of course it'd work with Win2K, ZFMicro provided the drivers for it.
Santuccie: not known for being truthful unless it suits him. Oh, and San? When was the last time you unplugged a USB stick from Windows without going through the "remove hardware safely" taskbar icon? Don't criticise Linux for requiring a step Windows also requires. It makes you look even dumber than you make already do.
>>>>What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with unmounting a drive; this has to do with the OS ceasing communication with the device without warning.
? linux is the kernel, not RedHat, Ubuntu, or SuSE, those are all just user-lands that sit on top of a tiny linux platform, it's easy to write a driver for all Linux distros, just write it for the damn kernel and EVERYONE can use it.?
>>>>Unless it interfaces with the user somehow. Some drivers do have application-level front-ends, just FYI.
?The only issue is not having the hardware manufacturers provide drivers, it's having no detailed information about the hardware so that it's impossible for the Open Source community to write drivers of their own.?
>>>>This one I?ll give you.
?and your use of the word 'fanboy' is burning with irony
?Fedora 11 works wonderfully on my Thinkpad. My wireless, sound, usb devices, suspend/hibernate, and my intel graphics accelerator are all working in fantastic order.?
>>>>So do mine, until after a few days nonstop.
?Sorry, but I don't see any point in dumping and puking over Linux because you bought non-standard (and in my opinion sub-standard) hardware.?
>>>>I?ve had no problems with my hardware since uninstalling Linux. Everything works flawlessly under XP (and 2K).
?How the hell do you strain a subsystem(daisy-chain???)? I have a powermac g3 running Debian, and it has been for a few weeks without a single shutdown, and the USB microsoft-brand(logitech) intellimouse is working without any issues.?
>>>>That was the best term I could come up with, because Linux seems to take it that way. And no, all it takes is a USB mouse or a portable app on a flashdrive, with the system running nonstop for 3-4 days straight.
?on the topic of your qualitative assessment of FOSS, can you tell me why it is that the majority of cinematic renderfarms, scientific clusters, supercomputers, smartphones, routers, mainframes, and webhosts all run FOSS (Linux, BSD, etc.) and why google is creating another Linux based operating system for consumption of the population at large if the Linuxes really are such sub-standard systems to use??
>>>>Because it is barebones and light, and comes stock with perfectly usable programming platforms. On supercomputers in particular, most projects are written on-demand. On servers, Linux is not quite as dominant as you think. Its market prevalence (or at least that of domains running under Apache) is approximately 1.38 times that of ISS. Also, the price might not hurt.
?Santuccie neglects to mention that not only did this 'fanboy' identify the exact substandard USB subsystem used in his Compaq Presario (ZFMicro. details of it's 'unexpected behaviour' and the special treatment required to work around it here http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg56515.html ) and that, no, it's not 'all' usb subsystems (like I wouldn't have noticed), just his PoS Compaq.?
BTW, if there is a known workaround for this problem, then it should be implemented out of the box. It?s not like many people are going to leave their box running 24/7; but God forbid anyone have the nerve to try installing an elite masterpiece like Linux on a cheapo PoS like a Compaq Presario! They?ll be SOL, and deserve it! And if they want anything done about it, then they?ll have to open a terminal and do it themselves. Sorry, but the average user is not an elitist nerd.
?He even didn't get that the drivers that come with Windows are still provided by the manufacturer even if they're on the Windows disc so of course it'd work with Win2K, ZFMicro provided the drivers for it.?
>>>>Once again, you miss the point. If there is a known workaround for this problem, then there is no excuse for not having implemented it into the kernel. You sound like such a victim, pinning the responsibility on everyone else because it CAN?T be Linux?s fault.
?Santuccie: not known for being truthful unless it suits him. Oh, and San? When was the last time you unplugged a USB stick from Windows without going through the "remove hardware safely" taskbar icon? Don't criticise Linux for requiring a step Windows also requires. It makes you look even dumber than you make already do.?
>>>>Please quote one of my ?untruthful? remarks. Oh, and the last time I unplugged a USB device without ?safely remove hardware? was either yesterday or the day before, on my grandmother?s HP (and this is because I was in a hurry to leave). As long as the drive is not reading/writing ? indicated by a blinking LED ? Windows will dismount just fine. And once again, what does this have to do with the OS suddenly ceasing communication with a device WITHOUT the device ever being dismounted, physically or otherwise?
This is getting old. I told you before and I'll tell you again, your argument is a complete washout. The problem is not just a couple of months old; I have known about it since 2006. And furthermore, we have more than just hardware issues here; we have other problems as well, and these are out-of-box problems. Windows problems usually arise when applications from dubious third parties are installed, and once in a blue moon when there is a conflict with MS Updates (yes, this does happen). But with Ubuntu, my panel icons get scrambled the first time I install updates. Perhaps this is because something in my Gateway laptop is a substandard PoS? Because I know it can't possibly be Linux's fault! Just to suggest something like that is outright heresy!
Both Linux and OS X (I'm assuming all Unix-based platforms) also give us the infamous sleep bug. And DON'T make the mistake of trying to tell me that THIS problem is confined to a singular, substandard, PoS hardware device; because CNET has a video tutorial to address just that one problem. They tell you to unplug all peripherals, close all running applications, and log off all users. RIDICULOUS!!! I have exactly 20 tabs open in Firefox right now, with various subjects I'll be looking into as I get around to it. I shouldn't have to close everything down just to accommodate the OS; the OS is supposed to accommodate me! That's part of the reason it was invented in the first place!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am of the understanding that your purpose in these forums is to convince readers to abandon Windows and switch to your "superior" platform. But this doesn't work if your whole MO is making excuses and pointing the finger. Hope this helps!
It has already been the year for lInux on production servers, web servers, robots, and phones, not to mention data centers and Cloud Computing.
Linux is the joke.
You use Linux every day.
Linus is serious business. It's shines as office power OS.
But at home it is a miserable failure. My two sound cards and dual screen setup (occasionally with TV over HDMI) makes pretty much all distros fail.
It's mind boggling that some brag about multimedia on Linux pointing at DIVX playback. It worked on Windows and Macs decade ago already. On Linux it started working decently only recently - and only because modern CPUs now are overpowered as DIVX goes.
I guesstimate I'd have to wait 5+ more years before I would be able to watch HD content under Linux.
As for my sound problem, I guess Linux would never become a hub for my hi-fi needs.
The OS that runs the web and Internet is irrelevant?
The OS that MS copied(and badly) for Vista and 7 is irrelevant?
The OS that MS spends millions of dollars on to spread FUD and is constantly attacking it is irrelevant?
Perhaps you don't understand the definition of irrelevant.
Give me a break... Linux hasn't doesn't an original thing in its entire existance. It started as a clone, and it survives as a clone (taking bits and pieces from OS X, Windows, etc).
Linux has had all of the "innovative" features in Vista for years before it was released.
Your comment shows that you really aren't sure what you are talking about. OS X is a Linux (albeit BSD variety) kernel. So how can Linux "take bits and pieces" from itself? What I have seen is a merging of ideas for the desktop environment. There are things that Linux has been adding over the years, as has Apple, and what we are seeing out there is some combination of the total set of ideas.
As for taking from Windows, X was around (I believe) at least as long as Windows, however it was never as "pretty" as the Windows desktop. Functionally, it works, but the average consumer out there wants point-and-click ease of use. X did not have that for a long time; now it does, and it does it more efficiently IMHO than does Windows. As pentest said, Compiz was out before Vista, and Compiz does all the fancy desktop displays that Vista has tried to add to the Windows platform (perhaps even more). The difference between Compiz and Vista's engine is that Compiz is able to do it all more efficiently, using less system resources, thus allowing the user to actually do something with their pc.
@formerssgtusmc
The only comment I have for you is that your comment deserves no response. It is obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about as others have already displayed here.
OS X is a BSD/Mach-derived operating system, and neither BSD nor Mach is 'a Linux'. Linux is a clone of BSD Unix (the old BSD branch of the Unix code base), whereas the modern free BSDs are BSD Unix with the Unix bits taken out and replaced. Calling BSD 'a Linux' is like calling coffee 'a Caro'.
The problem with X is that there is a history of 'things' that assume X is there, and do not work without it. I personally would prefer to see X fade into history.
Also, I run BSD, and BSD is not LINUX. BSD predates Linux by a significant margin. But I will also add that in recent years, BSD has benefited from Linux as much as Linux has benefited from BSD.
@pentest. Vista and Win 7 are not copies of Linux. Not sure where you got that idea. Linux is not the desktop. It is the kernel. There may be some look and feel issues that got copied to some degree from the desktops, but not the OS. If you have written device drivers for each, you would be quite clear on that. If you have dealt with the separate file systems on each and their related permissions model, you would be quite clear on that as well. I would argue that there are some things in Windows, at the OS level, that the Linux camp could learn from, if it wasn't for the patent issues. There are also some issues that Microsoft could learn from Linux, and I assume they are.
It does not beg the question; it raises the question. A tech site should at least have the virtue of using language precisely, especially the language of logic. Question begging is when an argument's conclusion is also one of its premises.
All sorts of misquotes will occur. It's like handing this to Apple and Microsoft on a silver plate.
Makes me wonder if Linus is turning into a liability and hindrance?
The opensuse install? 3.2 GB with everything they need, DB, development tools, compilers, open office, Kile, and even KDE 4.3 and all the 3D desktop graphical bells and whistles(no they didn't need but a few of them wanted to try it out). It is screaming fast on 4 GB, in fact it uses a little under 3GB with everything running.
So who is bloated?
When Linus talks about bloat it is still a small amount next to Windows. It is true that brain dead shills like yourself are going to exagerate his comments, and when you do just remember that a full Linux install with development tools and all the bells and whistles is 1/4 of the size of a default Vista install with nothing else. Of course that won't stop you from spreading lies, but maybe you will feel a twinge of guilt for being a liar.
I think Linus Torvalds deserves a little more respect.
You had a Windows machine "choke" on 4GB of RAM? Smells like BS to me.
That's not BS - I've seen it for myself as well. I have a developer friend that purchased a new machine with Vista on it. He installed VS2008 and MS SQL Server, and when everything was running (er, crawling) the system was nigh intolerable. It has 4GB of RAM, so, no pentest's comment is not BS. The irony of it is that when he reformatted the machine and "downgraded" to XP Pro and re-installed his dev tools, the system worked [relatively] well. The difference was simply the OS - Vista adds a lot of eye candy that winds up eating a lot of resources, and for what? A pretty desktop? Functionality, people, functionality must always come first. It could be the most beautiful OS you ever saw, but if you can't use your PC to perform your daily activities, what good is it?
4 bloated pigs, although MS SQL does have decent performance.
Just curious as to what the specs are for the rest of your system (CPU/FSB). I have a feeling that those have something to do with the difference in performance. But that goes back to the point of how much horsepower do you need to run Vista comfortably, and why should we have to go out and spend on completely new, more powerful pcs when the ones we already have were working fine? Perhaps that should be the measure of how bloated the OS happens to be - what are the minimum requirements for your pc to use the OS and have a comfortable feel to it?
It sounds like you're changing your story to fit whatever argument you're going to use next. That might explain why I'm seeing errors in the arguments you've been using. First off, how slow of a FSB do you think is reasonable to run a server? And second, since WHEN does ANYBODY use Vista's eye candy while running one? When a machine is supposed to be running two environments simultaneously, it's standard practice to turn off all visual styles, even when XP is your desktop platform. Didn't you or your friend (or pentest) know that?
Tip: Tell the truth. It's easier to remember than a lie, and more consistent. People will have a harder time shooting you down.
Wipe your mouth. There's still a little bit of B$ around your lips. It's just like your assertions as to how other platforms are MORE inherently secure than Vista, in spite of what the white hats say; while unable to engage in any discussion of a technical nature, citing merely status quo like a typical fanboy novice. But that couldn't be; you're a real, live penetration tester, aren't you?
'Of course that won't stop you from spreading lies, but maybe you will feel a twinge of guilt for being a liar.'
>>>>Look yourself in a mirror and say those words. Then see if you can bear to keep looking.
pentest = BSer
Matt just doesn't know the difference between a kernel and an operating system.
Actually, that is why it IS bloated. Simply compare between a DVD-size live CD vs a ~60 Mb one.
"Even so, it begs a question: will Linux become more like Windows as it becomes even more successful?"
Personally, I hardly see Windows as bloated, at least not XP. I'm not saying it's efficient, nor lightweight, but seriously, comparing it to some linux distros out there is like comparing a human skeleton to an elephant.
Besides, linux have been trying to imitate Windows since it got out. Sure, it has a great set of features, but ever noticed how slowly it integrated a well known browser? (antritrust anyone?)
Again....
I might be there.......Think.......
No may be I hsould use, a different way of saying it: It simply works.
- by trenyikzsolt September 22, 2009 3:59 AM PDT
- technically linux is the core. but you (Linus and others) always have to ask yourself, if you find something in the store: 1. do I need it really? 2. do I have money for it? If both are yes, you shoud buy it.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (123 Comments)The kernel is big, because it is a luck, that it supports many devices (contain many drivers). Les't go: 1. do we have space (memory and disk) for it? Is somebody able to write the good code? I think, bith are "yes". For Linus it is maybe more filosofical point of view than for the "average" user...
If somebody thinks of a specific distribution, it's fairly scary that you put a DVD to install an operating system, but be of that you don't install just an operating system, but an operating system a set of a huge amount of tools.
But summarize, whis USER doesn't sh*ts about the size of the operating system installed on a disk of 80-160 gigabytes??