3 ms·

I'm very open to that debate, but then show it. Exclude the drivers from the numbers. To do otherwise feels very dishonest. Process isolation and selinux are

by taeric 3y ago

I'm very open to that debate, but then show it. Exclude the drivers from the numbers. To do otherwise feels very dishonest. Process isolation and selinux are things that exist. You even mention it. Turns out, having complete isolation between basically everything in your system is hard. I don't see how microkernels will make that difficulty disappear?

tredre3 3y ago
> I'm very open to that debate, but then show it. Exclude the drivers from the numbers. To do otherwise feels very dishonest. With drivers: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Language files blank comment code --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C 32699 3332747 2610014 17218820 C/C++ Header 23690 712617 1373965 7109290 Assembly 1336 48534 101884 234314 Without drivers: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Language files blank comment code --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C 13200 1031558 951267 5356551 C/C++ Header 13760 300309 535100 1643611 Assembly 1321 47500 100899 230638 Seven million lines without drivers. Linux is huge. I'm sure you'll move the goalposts further though, so what should I do next? Delete most stuff in arch/ and samples/ ? Numbers obtained by running cloc 1.96 on current kernel master.
- taeric 3y ago
  This seems to just support my criticism, though? Even without the drivers, it is still a big number, but is literally less than half the lines of code shown before? Why inflate what you show just to get an absurd comparison? I think many are misunderstanding my criticism here. I offer it more as a way to strengthen the message than I do to question it entirely. To that end, the only "goal post shift" I would add is to ask how many of the 17 million lines of driver code have to be done for Hurd to support hardware that would make it more relevant for a ton of users?
- kelnos 3y ago
  > Delete most stuff in arch/ and samples/ ? Probably? If you really want an apples-to-apple comparison, delete everything but x86_64 support from both Linux and Hurd. Remove sample code. linux/net isn't strictly "drivers", but implements the base of the networking stack. That's 900k lines. Is that networking base code included with the Hurd figures? If not, delete it (or include in your comparison Hurd's base networking code). Beyond that, this is getting a bit ridiculous. Who cares about the LoC comparisons? They're very different kernels with very different levels of maturity and number of features. I'm not even convinced you can call one "better" or "worse" based on this metric at all.
klodolph 3y ago
> I'm very open to that debate, but then show it. Exclude the drivers from the numbers. To do otherwise feels very dishonest. You can ask for numbers without casting aspersions like that. This is HN. It is something like a casual conversation. You are free to ask for numbers, other people are free to provide or not provide them, and we should be able to have this conversation without leveling accusations of dishonesty (which the word “feels” does not really temper).
- taeric 3y ago
  I didn't say they were being dishonest, I said it feels dishonest. Consider it a critique of the message with my reasoning given. I was actually trying to find the numbers myself, and it was surprisingly more involved than I'd care for. I didn't want to give someone else more work, but happy to see the numbers expanded. I stand by my criticism, though. It feels off. If you want to say it is justified, spend more effort justifying it.
  - klodolph 3y ago
    > I didn't say they were being dishonest, I said it feels dishonest. The phrase “it feels” is not carte blanche to say what you want. I could say, “Someone reading this post might think that you’re an axe murderer.” Certainly not me, I don’t think you’re an axe murderer. But someone reading this post might think so. What this does is introduce a new topic of conversation—that topic is you, and whether you’re an axe murderer. I’ve done it without saying anything untrue. It is literally true, that someone reading this post might think that you’re an axe murderer. That has much the same effect as an accusation, but I’ve given you no real way to respond. When you write “it feels”, there is an implied subject, who is feeling those feelings. That subject is you.
    - taeric 3y ago
      This form of rhetoric for criticism is silly, though. For one, you are giving no charity to the side of my conversation. For two, you have to take it to the absurd caricature of claiming that others think someone is an axe murderer to try and make your point. Literally a type of rhetorical fallacy. I flat out feel it is dishonest, in the vein that it is cherry picked data to further support a point that they agree with. Such that, using "this is a casual conversation" as a rubrik, I absolutely call BS from people when they say stuff like this to me. If this was a "town square debate" where the conversation is partisan and folks are trying to score points, I'd agree with your assertion a bit more. But for casual conversation specifically, I ultimately reject this view. Now, if the poster is specifically offended, I'm more than willing to apologize on that and to clarify my point. I had no ill things to say about the poster or the main topic. Heavily critical of cherry picked data, with a justification of why.
darksaints 3y ago
But that is the entire point of the comparison. I get that you think an apples to apples comparison is the most honest way to portray this, but the whole point is to portray that this is an apples to oranges comparison. Linux has millions of lines of code running in ring 0, a micro kernel does not. They may end up having the same lines of code for comparable total system size, but that isn’t the point of the comparison. Process isolation actually isn’t fundamentally hard…it’s just hard on a system that wasn’t designed for it. And SELinux doesn’t do what microkernels do. Even with a tightly locked down SELinux configuration, a driver vulnerability can lead to root access. SELinux can protect your userland the same way that microkernels do, but it can’t put your drivers in userland.
- taeric 3y ago
  Fair. I'm not a fan of apples to oranges comparisons without leaning into more of it. Especially not when the obvious driver for difference between two things is that one is old and has a ton of the code you are currently behind on writing. I do question if process isolation isn't fundamentally hard. Separate processes for separate things entirely is not fundamentally hard. That, I agree. But, so much of what we do is integrated together. Is why early attempts to make it so that some programs can't see my whole hard drive are bonkers annoying. I specifically want access to the picture I just saved in that editing program so that I can email it.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    >obvious driver for difference between two things is that one is old and has a ton of the code you are currently behind on writing. In this case they’re both old though, as Hurd predates Linux by a year.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Fair, if amusing. Hurd "predates" Linux in name only. And, if anything, this would serve as a strong piece of evidence that microkernels have a hard time getting traction.

by taeric 3y ago

tredre3 3y ago

> I'm very open to that debate, but then show it. Exclude the drivers from the numbers. To do otherwise feels very dishonest. With drivers: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Language files blank comment code --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C 32699 3332747 2610014 17218820 C/C++ Header 23690 712617 1373965 7109290 Assembly 1336 48534 101884 234314 Without drivers: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Language files blank comment code --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C 13200 1031558 951267 5356551 C/C++ Header 13760 300309 535100 1643611 Assembly 1321 47500 100899 230638 Seven million lines without drivers. Linux is huge. I'm sure you'll move the goalposts further though, so what should I do next? Delete most stuff in arch/ and samples/ ? Numbers obtained by running cloc 1.96 on current kernel master.

taeric 3y ago
This seems to just support my criticism, though? Even without the drivers, it is still a big number, but is literally less than half the lines of code shown before? Why inflate what you show just to get an absurd comparison? I think many are misunderstanding my criticism here. I offer it more as a way to strengthen the message than I do to question it entirely. To that end, the only "goal post shift" I would add is to ask how many of the 17 million lines of driver code have to be done for Hurd to support hardware that would make it more relevant for a ton of users?
kelnos 3y ago
> Delete most stuff in arch/ and samples/ ? Probably? If you really want an apples-to-apple comparison, delete everything but x86_64 support from both Linux and Hurd. Remove sample code. linux/net isn't strictly "drivers", but implements the base of the networking stack. That's 900k lines. Is that networking base code included with the Hurd figures? If not, delete it (or include in your comparison Hurd's base networking code). Beyond that, this is getting a bit ridiculous. Who cares about the LoC comparisons? They're very different kernels with very different levels of maturity and number of features. I'm not even convinced you can call one "better" or "worse" based on this metric at all.

klodolph 3y ago

> I'm very open to that debate, but then show it. Exclude the drivers from the numbers. To do otherwise feels very dishonest. You can ask for numbers without casting aspersions like that. This is HN. It is something like a casual conversation. You are free to ask for numbers, other people are free to provide or not provide them, and we should be able to have this conversation without leveling accusations of dishonesty (which the word “feels” does not really temper).

taeric 3y ago
I didn't say they were being dishonest, I said it feels dishonest. Consider it a critique of the message with my reasoning given. I was actually trying to find the numbers myself, and it was surprisingly more involved than I'd care for. I didn't want to give someone else more work, but happy to see the numbers expanded. I stand by my criticism, though. It feels off. If you want to say it is justified, spend more effort justifying it.
- klodolph 3y ago
  > I didn't say they were being dishonest, I said it feels dishonest. The phrase “it feels” is not carte blanche to say what you want. I could say, “Someone reading this post might think that you’re an axe murderer.” Certainly not me, I don’t think you’re an axe murderer. But someone reading this post might think so. What this does is introduce a new topic of conversation—that topic is you, and whether you’re an axe murderer. I’ve done it without saying anything untrue. It is literally true, that someone reading this post might think that you’re an axe murderer. That has much the same effect as an accusation, but I’ve given you no real way to respond. When you write “it feels”, there is an implied subject, who is feeling those feelings. That subject is you.
  - taeric 3y ago
    This form of rhetoric for criticism is silly, though. For one, you are giving no charity to the side of my conversation. For two, you have to take it to the absurd caricature of claiming that others think someone is an axe murderer to try and make your point. Literally a type of rhetorical fallacy. I flat out feel it is dishonest, in the vein that it is cherry picked data to further support a point that they agree with. Such that, using "this is a casual conversation" as a rubrik, I absolutely call BS from people when they say stuff like this to me. If this was a "town square debate" where the conversation is partisan and folks are trying to score points, I'd agree with your assertion a bit more. But for casual conversation specifically, I ultimately reject this view. Now, if the poster is specifically offended, I'm more than willing to apologize on that and to clarify my point. I had no ill things to say about the poster or the main topic. Heavily critical of cherry picked data, with a justification of why.

darksaints 3y ago

But that is the entire point of the comparison. I get that you think an apples to apples comparison is the most honest way to portray this, but the whole point is to portray that this is an apples to oranges comparison. Linux has millions of lines of code running in ring 0, a micro kernel does not. They may end up having the same lines of code for comparable total system size, but that isn’t the point of the comparison. Process isolation actually isn’t fundamentally hard…it’s just hard on a system that wasn’t designed for it. And SELinux doesn’t do what microkernels do. Even with a tightly locked down SELinux configuration, a driver vulnerability can lead to root access. SELinux can protect your userland the same way that microkernels do, but it can’t put your drivers in userland.

taeric 3y ago
Fair. I'm not a fan of apples to oranges comparisons without leaning into more of it. Especially not when the obvious driver for difference between two things is that one is old and has a ton of the code you are currently behind on writing. I do question if process isolation isn't fundamentally hard. Separate processes for separate things entirely is not fundamentally hard. That, I agree. But, so much of what we do is integrated together. Is why early attempts to make it so that some programs can't see my whole hard drive are bonkers annoying. I specifically want access to the picture I just saved in that editing program so that I can email it.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  >obvious driver for difference between two things is that one is old and has a ton of the code you are currently behind on writing. In this case they’re both old though, as Hurd predates Linux by a year.
  - taeric 3y ago
    Fair, if amusing. Hurd "predates" Linux in name only. And, if anything, this would serve as a strong piece of evidence that microkernels have a hard time getting traction.