4 ms·

> 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: --------------

> 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.

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.