Hacker News Reader

Comment by halayli | Hacker News Reader

> most bloated kernel?

I wonder how you arrived to such conclusion.

I was just thinking about how many new releases there have been and how little new things have actually affected me or the servers I administer in any way. Of course, most of the added stuff are not part of the core kernel and I will probably never run the code but still?

The thing that got me on this track was thinking about all the systems that still run the 2.6.X kernels (and maybe even 2.4.X), how much, if any improvements would they get from upgrading to 3.5?

I wouldn't say it's "bloated", more featureful! In fact, I believe the kernel developers routinely cull old and crufty code.

The features that are in the Linux kernel are used by all sorts of folks. And there is a constant review of developers refactoring and debating how to merge features. And they never seem to merge features unless it is being done right from a technical viewpoint!

For example econet and token ring were purged from 3.5. So in some ways this is the most unbloated linux kernel in some time.

> how much, if any improvements would they get from upgrading to 3.5?

It depends on hardware and workload. A newer kernel will be able to use hardware an older one wouldn't be able to. It'll also do some newer tricks (I gather the work on TCP is yielding big performance improvements). I also like BtrFS, but won't deploy it to production just yet.

A new stable kernel is released on a regular schedule about every 2-3 months. Unlike many projects, these aren't based on major changes, but rather incremental improvements. In an ideal world, you should not notice any change other than module X is now supported (or occasionally you might see a performance boost)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com