| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| SCHED_DEADLINE v6 released |
| By special contributor cloud on 2012-10-27 01:05:38 |
| A new version of the real-time Linux scheduler called SCHED_DEADLINE has been released on the Linux Kernel Mailing List. For people who missed previous submissions, it consists of a new deadline-based CPU scheduler for the Linux kernel with bandwidth isolation (resource reservation) capabilities. It supports global/clustered multiprocessor scheduling through dynamic task migrations. This new version takes into account previous comments/suggestions and is aligned to the latest mainline kernel. A video about SCHED_DEADLINE is also available on YouTube. |
|
| RE[22]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-10-28 19:06:08 |
|
> But you're not supposed to install stuff outside of the repos in Linux. Do you even have a slightest idea how to use Linux, but that's an insanely weak point to make. I certainly know how to use Linux, that's why I can install stuff that isn't in the default repos. I can change them, add to it, convert RPMs, build from source. Isn't that what Linux is all about, the freedom to do stuff without restrictions? There is software about that isn't in any repo, how can you have install that if you aren't allowed to? Slackware doesn't even use repos, not counting 3rd party slapt-get. Does that mean you can't install anything on it? > It's not the same, but it is comparable. They both manage security patches and API dependencies. They can both install stuff, yes, but that's where WU stops. It doesn't de-install, install anything else, doesn't do any checks when you run a software installer. It's just a Microsoft software updater. > Yet you've failed to grasp every single point about Windows and Linux raised? I do grasp, but I made one single point: Windows and OS X users don't know about dependencies, because they aren't issues on those systems. .NET and DirectX perhaps qualify as such, but install Windows 7 and you have them. Nor does WU even come near APT or RPM in possibilities, software, management, number of software packages. > And I agreed with you on that. However every other point you've made to back up that assertion has being wrong and often bording on complete ignorance. I know very well how it all works, but I'm not going there. My point is very simple. You're trying to prove Windows does have dependencies. Yes, a few (that are already installed), but this doesn't compare at all to Linux (where they aren't all already installed). > I have no idea what software have what dependencies and I run one of the more hands on distros. But you do know they are there and needed. Ask a Windows dude about dependencies and they'll look at you funny. Just download any piece of Windows freeware and see how many dependencies it will try to install, probably zero. > And to say Windows users aren't aware of .NET, DirectX and such like is just laughable. I didn't say that, I said "dependencies". .NET and DirectX are known amongst Windows users, but they are installed by default. Their total number is 2. Install a default Debian and add some of your favorite stuff, the number of dependencies that get included if far far greater. Let's install nmap: (ceres) 2 7:39PM /root> aptitude install nmap The following NEW packages will be installed: liblua5.1-0{a} libpcap0.8{a} nmap Or SLRN: (ceres) 3 7:40PM /root> aptitude install slrn The following NEW packages will be installed: libcanlock2{a} libuu0{a} slrn Ghostscript: (ceres) 4 7:40PM /root> aptitude install ghostscript The following NEW packages will be installed: fontconfig-config{a} ghostscript gsfonts{a} libcupsimage2{a} libfontconfig1{a} libgs8{a} libjasper1{a} libjbig2dec0{a} libjpeg62{a} libpaper-utils{a} libpaper1{a} libpng12-0{a} libtiff4{a} ttf-dejavu-core{a} (and that's just the deps they are missing, they require more) Download a network scanner or Usenet reader for Windows and it will come with a single installer, OS X just comes with a single icon you drag 'n' drop. All the dependencies the Windows application needs are included in the installer, the OS X ones are included within the .app. The user won't be aware of them. Hence my point: Windows and OS X users don't know about them. And even better: they are allowed to install stuff that isn't in a repo! Again: I'm not criticizing Linux, package managers or dependencies. It's just something that comes with the territory. Drive letters are something that comes with Windows and Apple users have the Dock. Hate it or love it, it comes with the product. When you use Linux, any Linux, you'll soon learn about dependencies. |
 - Score: 1 |
| RE[23]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By Alfman on 2012-10-28 20:42:12 |
|
MOS6510, You guys are both right and are fussing over details :) Linux users who stick to the repos generally have dependency's managed for them. Sometimes we want to or have to install outside of the repositories. External packages can be trivial to handle when they're compatible with managed dependencies, other times they can be a nightmare. On windows, the convention is for the installer to include/install all binaries and dependencies, so duplication is rampant, but it usually works. It's not always the case though, this past month I couldn't get the new .net version of xlite running on windows 7 on someone's machine, so I reverted to the non .net version. Also, skype 5 has broken dependencies on windows xp, although that's likely deliberate. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE[24]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-10-29 05:47:54 |
|
> You guys are both right and are fussing over details :) Aye, keeping the OSNews tradition alive! And I'm a little more right anyway. :-p |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[23]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By Laurence on 2012-10-29 11:37:09 |
|
> I certainly know how to use Linux, that's why I can install stuff that isn't in the default repos. I can change them, add to it, convert RPMs, build from source. Isn't that what Linux is all about, the freedom to do stuff without restrictions? There is software about that isn't in any repo, how can you have install that if you aren't allowed to? Slackware doesn't even use repos, not counting 3rd party slapt-get. Does that mean you can't install anything on it? The difference between Slackware and Ubuntu are as big as the differences between FreeBSD and OS X. So you're not really comparing like for like. and as I've repeatedly said already, if you're the kind of user that will get stumped by dependencies then you shouldn't be running a more technical distro. so this whole argument about how "new users would struggle with dependencies on Slackware" is stupid as new users shouldn't be using Slackware in the first place. > They can both install stuff, yes, but that's where WU stops. It doesn't de-install, install anything else, doesn't do any checks when you run a software installer. It's just a Microsoft software updater. It does checks when you run WU and it does add items to the registry for de-installation via Add/Remove Programs (even if it doesn't de-install anything personally). However you're still missing the point. You stated that Windows doesn't do dependency checks, I cited a Windows utility that does. > I know very well how it all works, but I'm not going there. My point is very simple. You're trying to prove Windows does have dependencies. Yes, a few (that are already installed), but this doesn't compare at all to Linux (where they aren't all already installed). that wasn't your original point and I'm sorry to be rude but you've made it perfectly clear that you haven't completely understood how this stuff works by the way you've blindly stabbed at arguments. You've demonstrated complete ignorance about recommended deps in apt-get and how to clean up dependencies when uninstalling via the CLI (there was a post about these two items which you've ignored). You've also demonstrated complete ignorance about the size of Windows packages and basically just fudged every single point you've made. But rather than listen to others and learn a little information (after all, your root point was never disputed, only the crazy arguments you made to uphold your issue with Linux dependencies), you've been too proud to admit that you could have gaps in your understanding and have proceeded to reiterate the same retarded arguments over and over. In short, you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about. > But you do know they are there and needed. Another example of retarded logic; I know Win32 APIs are there on Windows and needed, but that doesn't mean that Windows is broken because of it. I know a car engine is there and needed, but that doesn't mean car engines are broken by design. I know our sun is there and needed for life on Earth, but that doesn't mean I have to worry about whether it would rise and fall each day. I mean, if we're just listening off stuff we know exist as proof that things don't work, then we might as well just give up now. > Ask a Windows dude about dependencies and they'll look at you funny. Just download any piece of Windows freeware and see how many dependencies it will try to install, probably zero. True. But they same people also complain about the 16GB footprint Windows has and how the footprint always grows with time; eventually forcing a complete system rebuilt. Having every possible dependency preinstalled by default isn't the golden egg. Personally I wish Windows managed it's dependencies a little more. > I didn't say that, I said "dependencies". .NET and DirectX are known amongst Windows users, but they are installed by default. Their total number is 2. Install a default Debian and add some of your favorite stuff, the number of dependencies that get included if far far greater. Another example of not knowing what you're talking about. .NET isn't a single dependency, it's about 5 (v1, 2, 2.5, 3 and 4 IIRC). Each near enough 100MB in size. DirectX isn't a single dependency, it's several: Direct3D, DirectSound, DirectInput, etc. then you have Silverlight extensions, DRM extensions, XNA extensions, and such like. Granted (bar Silverlight) they're all wrapped up in one re-distributable, but that's another 100MB re-distributable. Linux, however, would have them all as separate libraries. So if an application only made use of graphics libraries, you wouldn't have every other library in a forced download as well. Thus reducing the downloading and disk footprint required. You're also ignoring VB runtimes, Visual C++ re-distributables, MFC, Win32s, Winsock APIs, Trident objects, Office plugins, PDF plugins, Silverlight, Flash, hardware device libraries, ASIO, OpenGL, JRE, ActiveX controls, misc 3rd party shared DLLs, and so many more I've forgotten. You keep arguing that Windows doesn't have dependencies, that's just complete and utter drivel. Just Google "Windows missing DLL" and you'll see that users a frequently greeted with a missing dependency. As frequently as Linux? Possibly not; depending on the distro. But to say that it doesn't happen on Windows is just ignorant. > And even better: they are allowed to install stuff that isn't in a repo! Again, complete ignorance. Win8 ARM locks you entirely into MS's repos. Both Windows and OS X are moving away from allowing software to be installed outside of their ecosystem. At least Linux gives you the chance to add new repos or install via a standalone .deb / RPM or source tarball, even if it's not the preferred method. > Again: I'm not criticizing Linux, package managers or dependencies. I appreciate that. I'm genuinely not objecting to any perceived criticism against Linux / package managers. As I've said myself, I don't think Linux shared objects are the best solution to the problem. However my issue with you isn't the conclusion (that I agree with), it's the reasoning you used to deduce your conclusion. all the reasons you've cited have been complete garbage, even if you were absolutely correct in stating that the Windows method is easier for new user. I guess it's a bit like arguing that life on earth depends on the sun because it's a mystical God that breaths life to all plants. Conclusion (life depends on sun); 100% correct. Reasoning (sun is God); idiotic. From a Linux and Windows system administrator and developer, that's how you're arguments are coming across, even though I do actually agree with your final conclusion. :) |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[24]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-10-29 12:04:11 |
|
You display an amazing ability to keep ignoring my single and simple point. A quick demonstration of it in practice: [29-10-12 12:40:09] Etienne Wettingfeld: Heb jij wel eens problemen met dependencies onder Windows? [29-10-12 12:40:33] Remco Ketting: Ik weet niet eens wat het is Google translate: [29/10/12 12:40:09] Etienne Wettingfeld: Did you ever have problems with dependencies on Windows? [29/10/12 12:40:33] Remco Chain: I do not even know what it is [29-10-12 12:49:20] Etienne Wettingfeld: Heb je wel eens last van Windows dependencies? [29-10-12 12:49:45] Judith Lievaart: wat zijn dependencies? Google translate: [29/10/12 12:49:20] Etienne Wettingfeld: Have you ever experienced Windows dependencies? [29/10/12 12:49:45] Judith Lievaart: what are dependencies? And this is my point, my only one and it's very simple. Dependencies are not an issue for Windows and OS X users. If there are they are very rare. For some strange reason you try to prove there are dependencies under Windows and I don't dispute that, but it's something that is not an issue for users. I guess part of the confusing is you don't use Windows. Comparing Windows Update to a Linux package manager and pointing to DLL hell make it seem you're not up-to-date with Windows. Comparing FreeBSD to OS X is also a very far stretch, much further than my comparison of Debian and Slackware. You said: > that wasn't your original point and I'm sorry to be rude but you've made it perfectly clear that you haven't completely understood how this stuff works by the way you've blindly stabbed at arguments. My original claim which to you responded was: "Windows and OS X users can't even spell the word 'dependency'" And then followed it up with: "Windows and OS X don't have package systems that involve dependencies, because it's no big deal." Windows Update does not qualify as a package systems, it's an Microsoft product updater. The new Apple app store isn't either, the apps it downloads and update have their dependencies included, the app store doesn't do any checking. If you download an app on Windows or OS X and it needs something extra and it won't install it for you nor Windows (Update) nor OS X will do it for you. Unlike apt for example. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[25]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By Laurence on 2012-10-29 12:29:24 |
|
> You display an amazing ability to keep ignoring my single and simple point. A quick demonstration of it in practice: [29-10-12 12:40:09] Etienne Wettingfeld: Heb jij wel eens problemen met dependencies onder Windows? [29-10-12 12:40:33] Remco Ketting: Ik weet niet eens wat het is Google translate: [29/10/12 12:40:09] Etienne Wettingfeld: Did you ever have problems with dependencies on Windows? [29/10/12 12:40:33] Remco Chain: I do not even know what it is [29-10-12 12:49:20] Etienne Wettingfeld: Heb je wel eens last van Windows dependencies? [29-10-12 12:49:45] Judith Lievaart: wat zijn dependencies? Google translate: [29/10/12 12:49:20] Etienne Wettingfeld: Have you ever experienced Windows dependencies? [29/10/12 12:49:45] Judith Lievaart: what are dependencies? Not knowing what dependencies are isn't the same thing as not having problems with dependencies: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q... > And this is my point, my only one and it's very simple. Dependencies are not an issue for Windows and OS X users. If there are they are very rare. Agreed > For some strange reason you try to prove there are dependencies under Windows and I don't dispute that, but it's something that is not an issue for users. It's rarely an issue for Windows users. ;) > I guess part of the confusing is you don't use Windows. You're right, I magically develop Windows applications without ever touching Windows. Excellent deduction there mate ;) > Comparing Windows Update to a Linux package manager and pointing to DLL hell make it seem you're not up-to-date with Windows. I never said anything about DLL hell. I was listing off Windows dependencies; citing them as evidence that there are in fact more than just the two you listed. > Comparing FreeBSD to OS X is also a very far stretch, much further than my comparison of Debian and Slackware. Read what I posted again; I made the Ubuntu / Slackware comparison in that post. I never cited Debian was like OS X. In fact if anything, I'd argue that FreeBSD is more akin to OS X than Slackware is akin to Ubuntu. > And then followed it up with: "Windows and OS X don't have package systems that involve dependencies, because it's no big deal." Windows Update does not qualify as a package systems, it's an Microsoft product updater. The new Apple app store isn't either, the apps it downloads and update have their dependencies included, the app store doesn't do any checking. You're nitpicking there. I will grant you that WU isn't a complete package manager, but it does handle dependencies (which was the point you were raising when I cited WU). And I do agree that neither Windows Marketplace nor the App Store are complete package managers either, but they are repos - which was in direct response to when you discussed Linux repos specifically. You made claims that X, Y and Z doesn't happen on Windows / OS X, I gave examples of where it does, and then you disregard them because they're not an exact replica of the Linux metaphor, despite them being a direct implementation of a function you said didn't exist in the first place. > If you download an app on Windows or OS X and it needs something extra and it won't install it for you nor Windows (Update) nor OS X will do it for you. Unlike apt for example. True, it does something even more evil; it just fails. Personally I'd rather have my additional dependencies auto-resolved rather than have an unworkable application that I'm expected to debug myself ;) so arguing that having dependencies not auto download as a bad thing is just retarded. But I doubt you'd ever back down from that position given how deep into debate we've now become. And before you cite that most Windows installers ship the required dependencies within them, that's still worse than having a managed solution because it means that every games installation medium requires having DirectX (et al) re-distributable regardless of whether that's already installed on the target machine. Hardly an optimal method really is it. And to close, while you may nitpick at the definition of "package management system" to suit your failing arguments, take note that the rest of the world has saner definitions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lis... *awaits yet another reply from you as you desperately try to disprove the weight of evidence stacked against you. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[26]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-10-29 12:32:43 |
|
> > And this is my point, my only one and it's very simple. Dependencies are not an issue for Windows and OS X users. If there are they are very rare. Agreed Finally! :-D |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[24]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By Laurence on 2012-10-29 12:33:40 |
|
> MOS6510, You guys are both right and are fussing over details :) This is the problem though. His conclusion was right, he just reach that conclusion with completely incorrect details. Which is really irritating as I want to talk about he reasons why Linux dependencies suck and how to better handle them. But instead he keeps derailing the discussion over trivialities that don't exist. So I've now given up being polite and having any productive debate. :-/ |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[27]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By Laurence on 2012-10-29 12:34:31 |
| Yeah, just a pity you're ignorant to grasp why :p |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[28]: lie-nux at it again. |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-10-29 12:36:02 |
| I do, but if you want me to explain it I'll just copy 'n' paste your bit just to make it extra annoying. :-p |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |