| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 22:04:49 +0900 From: Jérôme Pinot <ngc891@...il.com> To: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Cc: Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu> Subject: Re: Evolution of kernel size On 11/11/11 11:51, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:33:33PM +0900, Jérôme Pinot wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I took some time to make a graph of the evolution of the size of the > > linux kernel tar.bz2 since version 1.0 till 3.1 (297 releases). > > It doesn't count the stable branches (2.6.x.y). > > The question really is what are you trying to show with the graph, and > what do you plan to use the graph for? If it is estimating the size > of disk space that you'll need at some point in the future, that's > fine. If it's for entertainment value, that's fine too. That's exactly the point :-) > But if it's to try to make some claims about (for example) kernel > complexity, you'd do better to measure the size of various specific > subsystems, such as mm, core kernel, a specific file system, etc. And > even then, the statistics can be misleading since sometimes > refactoring to reduce complexity or removing unneeded abstraction > layers can end up reducing the size of the subsystem, but leave it in > a more maintainable state. Measuring code complexity or work/cost of the source code was out of my scope. -- Jérôme Pinot http://ngc891.blogdns.net/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists