linux crashes

[dpopiz]

they crash constantly to a command prompt with error messages all down it

 

[drag]

What? Is this a general observation or do you want help stopping them from crashing?

 

[xtknight]

Do you want a cookie or something?

 

[nweaver]

my linux box crashes

my windows box crashes


my car crashes

my family crashes at my house



is there a point? Is ther anyone here who clamed that Linux didn't crash?

 

[Cogman]

Oh, Linux crashs, but that is basicly from poor managment. Win9x/ME would just crash if it felt like it. I have to give Win2000/XP credit though, they are very stable and hardly ever crash (again, carelessness is the main cause for crashes.). So Yeah.

 

[DasFox]

Linux doesn't crash, do you guys even know what you are talking about?

Do you even know what Linux is?

LINUX IS THE KERNEL

The kernel doesn't crash, Unix/Linux applications might crash, but if you ever CRASH the kernel then something is very messed up and I highly doubt anyone has ever crashed the kernel, all though possible but highly doubtful in a stable kernel when things are done properly and I stress when PROPER.

ALOHA

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: DasFox
Linux doesn't crash, do you guys even know what you are talking about?

Do you even know what Linux is?

LINUX IS THE KERNEL

The kernel doesn't crash, Unix/Linux applications might crash, but if you ever CRASH the kernel then something is very messed up and I highly doubt anyone has ever crashed the kernel, all though possible but highly doubtful in a stable kernel when things are done properly and I stress when PROPER.

ALOHA

Ok, cue "arguing semantics" for the rest of this thread...

 

[Nothinman]

The kernel doesn't crash, Unix/Linux applications might crash, but if you ever CRASH the kernel then something is very messed up and I highly doubt anyone has ever crashed the kernel, all though possible but highly doubtful in a stable kernel when things are done properly and I stress when PROPER.

Not true, check out lkml every once in a while and you'll find people complaining about kernel oopses fairly often. Mostly in the -mm kernel series since it's the staging ground for Linus' tree, but it still happens. There's always new code going into the kernel and the developers can't catch every possible setup so things get missed. And if you look on sites like the nvnews.net forums you'll see all kinds of people complaining about the nVidia drivers killing their system.

 

[DasFox]

Well yes of course there's always new goodies going into the kernel.

I've never had Linux crash once in 7 years, and I've used more kernel versions, compiled more ways then I can ever begin to imagine on just about every major distro out there, and the kernel never once gave me a problem, personally I don't consider that luck, hehe

ALOHA

 

[Nothinman]

I've never had Linux crash once in 7 years, and I've used more kernel versions, compiled more ways then I can ever begin to imagine on just about every major distro out there, and the kernel never once gave me a problem, personally I don't consider that luck, hehe

I would, I've had everything from the nvidia module causing my laptop's screen to visually "melt" to ReiserFS oopsing and causing the console to blank at the same time forcing me to hookup a serial console to even see that it was ReiserFS causing the oops.

 

[Cogman]

Linux doesn't crash, do you guys even know what you are talking about?

Linux, or GNU/Linux, refers to any Unix-like computer operating system which uses the Linux kernel. It is one of the most prominent examples of open source development and free software; its underlying source code is available for anyone to use, modify, and redistribute freely.

wiki.

Basicly you are half right. Linux has a linux kernel just like windows has a windows kernel. to say windows crashed would probibly be wrong as well as the windows kernel is usually not what crashes but the application or some layer of application crashing.

BTW yes I do know what Im talking about, Ive used linux quite frequently (look at the avitar...)

 

[kamper]

Ah yes, I've heard you have to pass real l337ness tests to get the penguin avatar.

-What's your favorite colour?
-Blue
-Does linux have a kernel?
-Yes
-What is the air-velocity ratio of a swallow carrying a one pound coconut?
-...

 

[drag]

I've had the Linux kernel crap out on me a few times.

Just last week I had compiled experimental drivers for rt2500 usb wifi dongle that I own. I tried to put my laptop to sleep with it, took it right out. When I brought it back up it puked. Oops'd all over the place.

It all depends on what your doing. If you muck around with it it's not hard to run into a crash every once and a while.

But if I put a system to be used were I cared about stability I'd find a configuration that I liked, run benchmarks and do some stuff to stress it. See what happens. After that if it's fine I am confident that it'll run for a long time without any issues.

Linux kernel definately isn't the most stable system out there. Besides normal bugs you can get nailed in between kernel updates if your not carefull and some distros think it's the best idea in the world to shovel all sorts of patches into the kernel and that's not good. Sure it's nice to get as much hardware supported out of the box, but stability should be a higher priority.

I'd score it as a 7 out of 10. A good admin with reliable hardware and good drivers should be able to bump it up to a 8 or a 9.

For comparision when you take Unix systems. For instance, SCO on PCs. People will hire somebody to come in and set it up, and the next time they need somebody to come and look at it will be 5 years later when a drive dies or when they need up update the software. It's one of the problems SCO would run into is that people were perfectly happy to let old software run and avoid the pain of going through a big upgrade and pay for all new licenses.. They probably are around a 8.5 or so (oddball hardware BS would still be able to take them out. Like some horrible serial port misconfiguration or something.)

From people who are used to dealing with that sort of thing were you can know almost all the serious bugs and know how to avoid them and work around them.. then they'll see Linux-based system as downright chaotic and describe it as very volitile.

 

[n0cmonkey]

I crash linux kernels constantly.

 

[stash]

Sweet, I can be a Linux expert by changing my avatar to a penguin? Hot.

 

[n0cmonkey]

I'm still trying to figure out the point of the post.

If it was a call for help, error messages would have to be posted.

If it was just to make fun of Linux, let me know. I won't pay any more attention.

If it's a post wondering if this is "normal," the answer is no. Things like this generally fall into a few categories: 1. dumb users - either not knowing what they are doing or not knowing what they are seeing 2. dumb admins - either not knowing what they are doing or just not knowing what they are doing 3. bad hardware - everyone's had a hardware problem at one time or another, or they're new to computers

 

[Mesix]

What about kernel panics?

If and when linux crashes, kernel panics and segfaults are the big two. I'd say thats frequent enough to consider.

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I've never had Linux crash once in 7 years, and I've used more kernel versions, compiled more ways then I can ever begin to imagine on just about every major distro out there, and the kernel never once gave me a problem, personally I don't consider that luck, hehe

I would, I've had everything from the nvidia module causing my laptop's screen to visually "melt" to ReiserFS oopsing and causing the console to blank at the same time forcing me to hookup a serial console to even see that it was ReiserFS causing the oops.

Well one the Nvidia drivers aren't the Linux kernel and has nothing to do with Linux, blaming Linux on Nvidia isn't correct this is Nvidia's problem not Linux.

ReiserFS isn't as stable a FS, you should be using ext2 or ext3 for stability. Now we're blaming a FS on Linux.

Nvidia and ReiserFS, put simply are not a part of Linux, meaning not built by, etc...

Since when did Linus or Linux developers build either one of these? See my point?

ALOHA

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Linux doesn't crash, do you guys even know what you are talking about?

Linux, or GNU/Linux, refers to any Unix-like computer operating system which uses the Linux kernel. It is one of the most prominent examples of open source development and free software; its underlying source code is available for anyone to use, modify, and redistribute freely.

wiki.

Basicly you are half right. Linux has a linux kernel just like windows has a windows kernel. to say windows crashed would probibly be wrong as well as the windows kernel is usually not what crashes but the application or some layer of application crashing.

BTW yes I do know what Im talking about, Ive used linux quite frequently (look at the avitar...)

Sorry don't mean to be rude here, what is your half right suppose to suggest? Where was I half wrong?

I wasn't wrong in anything I said.

Actually you're half wrong, correct Windows and Linux kernels are you could say the OS engines, somewhat the same functionality, but if you've run Linux for any length of time as you claim then you should know there is also a big difference between the two.

ALOHA

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: Mesix
What about kernel panics?

If and when linux crashes, kernel panics and segfaults are the big two. I'd say thats frequent enough to consider.

Kernel panics and segfaults could also happen because someone doesn't compile the kernel properly either, not a system error, but a human one.

I've never had a panic or a segfault on a properly setup kernel and box.

ALOHA

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: DasFox

Originally posted by: Mesix
What about kernel panics?

If and when linux crashes, kernel panics and segfaults are the big two. I'd say thats frequent enough to consider.

Kernel panics and segfaults could also happen because someone doesn't compile the kernel properly either, not a system error, but a human one.

I've never had a panic or a segfault on a properly setup kernel and box.

ALOHA

How can you compile the kernel wrong?

So, if there is a bug in the kernel and it panics because you hit the bug is it an improperly setup kernel because that bug was allowed in?

 

[DasFox]

If anyone crashes Linux kernels all the time then there is a problem in the software code or the kernel, meaning these aren't always the problems if done correct.

Possibly the compile options or flags in software don't work well for your system, and need to be changed as one possible example, or the software isn't so stable. In the case of the kernel certain options compiled in aren't supporting your hardware as well as they should or the hardware is flaky.

How do you compile wrong?

BY compiling in the wrong hardware support of course.

Also it's been known that on occasion someone will make a module for their file system instead of compiling it in, now that is one fine example where you will cause a panic/segfault.

There are many options one can pick for their kernel that can cause issues.

The Linux kernel isn't perfect, so just because your hardware can support something it doesn't mean that the kernel deals with it well.

ACPI support is another fine example even though it's been in the kernel for quite sometime there are still instances where some hardware won't deal well with this causing systems problems, crashes, etc...

For a situation like ACPI, and understanding the quirks of the Linux kernel just comes with time, and experience in compiling and dealing with it to learn what you hardware likes and dislikes about the kernel.

And just because distros like Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora, Mandriva, etc... the TOP ones I'll call them are out there as the most popular, these can sometimes be the worst when it comes to all these crashes and problems, because they have the widest range of support compiled in that is suppose to work for you, but at times doesn't.

It's always BEST to compile a kernel for your own box.

Remember just because it's compiled in, and your hardware is suppose to support it, it doesn't always mean it's going to be the best thing to do, or use.

Hardware support can be an issue for some people, causing problems because support their particular hardware either has fair support meaning it might be listed as supported hardware, but that doesn't mean the support is mature, bugs worked out, etc...

Or even thought it's mature there are still issues that arise, and then of course support that is marginal at best, even though Linux might say it exists.

Hardware support sometimes can still be a bit of a tricky issue, causing all these crashes and problems, even though the kernel and software being used are not the issues and stable.

ALOHA

 

[Nothinman]

How can you compile the kernel wrong?

In addition to leaving out support for things you need like DasFox said there have been instances where gcc will output bad code, usually it's just something minor like mis-optimization but occasionally it'll do something completely off the wall.

Also it's been known that on occasion someone will make a mode for their file system instead of compiling it in, now that is one fine example where you will cause a panic/segfault.

That's not a problem if you handle it properly, I run a setup very similar to 'make allmodconfig' and udev loads what's necessary at bootup from an initramfs image.

It's always BEST to compile a kernel for your own box.

Not really, it's pretty pointless these days. Distros package everything as a module so the only thing you'll save is a little bit of disk space.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: DasFox
If anyone crashes Linux kernels all the time then there is a problem in the software code or the kernel, meaning these aren't always the problems if done correct.

Possibly the compile options or flags in software don't work well for your system, and need to be changed as one possible example, or the software isn't so stable. In the case of the kernel certain options compiled in aren't supporting your hardware as well as they should or the hardware is flaky.

Uhhh, what?

How do you compile wrong?

BY compiling in the wrong hardware support of course.

Also it's been known that on occasion someone will make a module for their file system instead of compiling it in, now that is one fine example where you will cause a panic/segfault.

There are many options one can pick for their kernel that can cause issues.

The Linux kernel isn't perfect, so just because your hardware can support something it doesn't mean that the kernel deals with it well.

ACPI support is another fine example even though it's been in the kernel for quite sometime there are still instances where some hardware won't deal well with this causing systems problems, crashes, etc...

For a situation like ACPI, and understanding the quirks of the Linux kernel just comes with time, and experience in compiling and dealing with it to learn what you hardware likes and dislikes about the kernel.

And just because distros like Ubuntu, Suse, Fedora, Mandriva, etc... the TOP ones I'll call them are out there as the most popular, these can sometimes be the worst when it comes to all these crashes and problems, because the have the widest range of support compiled in that is suppose to work for you, but at times doesn't.

It's always BEST to compile a kernel for your own box.

Remember just because it's compiled in, and your hardware is suppose to support it, it doesn't always mean it's going to be the best thing to do, or use.

ALOHA

Misconfiguration, not compiling wrong. Of course misconfiguration can cause crashes.

It's always best to use a default kernel and not mess with the configuration yourself. It's less likely to be wrong.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
In addition to leaving out support for things you need like DasFox said there have been instances where gcc will output bad code, usually it's just something minor like mis-optimization but occasionally it'll do something completely off the wall.

That's a gcc bug, it doesn't mean you compiled it wrong.