Ingo Molnár

Ingo Molnár (2005)

Ingo Molnar is a Hungarian software developer , the major components in the open-source - kernel Linux developed.

job

His best-known developments are the O (1) scheduler and the Completely Fair Scheduler in the 2.6 kernel and the kernel-based web server Tux. Other major contributions to the Linux kernel are improvements to the kernel's thread system and the so-called Exec Shield , which can prevent buffer overflows on the x86 architecture. His current project is the rt-tree ( realtime preemption patch ), which extends the Linux kernel with realtime capabilities. Ingo Molnár is currently employed by Red Hat .

Criticism of the Linux desktop

In 2012, Molnar clearly criticized the Linux desktop as “not free enough” because the centrally organized software distribution via Linux distributions was too slow and did not scale sufficiently with the number of applications to meet user expectations. He specifically pleaded for the provision of a decentralized, scalable and distribution-independent software distribution method (similar to e.g. Autopackage , Zero Install , Klik successor PortableLinuxApps ), the lack of such a mechanism is one of the core problems of the Linux desktop.

Web links

eu.kernel.org ( Memento from February 21, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
Ingo's LKML contributions ( Memento from October 25, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) (English, 2007)

Individual evidence

^ Ingo Molnár: Technology: What ails the Linux desktop? Part I. ( English ) plus.google.com. March 17, 2012. Retrieved June 16, 2012: “ The basic failure of the free Linux desktop is that it's, perversely, not free enough. There's been a string of Linux desktop quality problems, specific incidents reported by + Linas Vepstas, + Jon Masters, + Linus Torvalds and others, and reading the related G + discussions made me aware that many OSS developers don't realize what a deep hole we are in. The desktop Linux suckage we are seeing today - on basically all the major Linux distributions - are the final symptoms of mistakes made 10-20 years ago - the death cries of a platform. Desktop Linux distributions are trying to 'own' 20 thousand application packages consisting of over a billion lines of code and have created parallel, mostly closed ecosystems around them. The typical update latency for an app is weeks for security fixes (sometimes months) and months (sometimes years) for major features. They are centrally planned, hierarchical organizations instead of distributed, democratic free societies. "
↑ Robert Staudinger: Distribution-independent packages with auto package - one for all . Linux magazine 2006/02. February 1, 2006. Accessed April 11, 2012: “ Although they work on the same principle, RPMs from Suse 9.2 do not run under Suse 9.3, and certainly not under Red Hat. The Autopackage project relies on a uniform standard for the creation of installation packages. The individual packages resolve their dependencies themselves. "
↑ Thomas Leonard: Decentralized Installation Systems ( English ) osnews.com. January 16, 2007. Retrieved May 3, 2012.
↑ Simon Peter: AppImageKit Documentation 1.0 (PDF; 38 kB) PortableLinuxApps.org. Pp. 2-3. 2010. Archived from the original on November 29, 2010. Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Retrieved July 29, 2011: “ Linux distributions mostly use package managers for everything. While this is perceived superior to Windows and the Mac by many Linux enthusiasts, it also creates a number of disadvantages: Centralization […], Duplication of effort […], Need to be online […], No recent apps on mature operating systems […], No way to use multiple versions in parallel […], Not easy to move an app from one machine to another […]. The AppImage format has been created with specific objectives in mind: Be distribution-agnostic […], Maintain binary compatibility […] " @1@ 2

^ Ingo Molnár: Technology: What ails the Linux desktop? Part II. ( English ) plus.google.com. March 17, 2012. Retrieved June 16, 2012: “ So, to fix desktop Linux we need a radically different software distribution model: less of a cathedral, more of a bazaar. […] - totally flat package dependencies (ie a package update does not forcibly pull in other package updates) […] - a guaranteed ABI platform going forward (once a package is installed it will never break or require forced updates again). Users want to be free of update pressure from the rest of the system, if they choose to. "

personal data
SURNAME	Molnár, Ingo
BRIEF DESCRIPTION	Hungarian programmer, Linux kernel developer
DATE OF BIRTH	20th century

[molnar2012-1-1] Ingo Molnár: Technology: What ails the Linux desktop? Part I. ( English ) plus.google.com. March 17, 2012. Retrieved June 16, 2012: “ The basic failure of the free Linux desktop is that it's, perversely, not free enough. There's been a string of Linux desktop quality problems, specific incidents reported by + Linas Vepstas, + Jon Masters, + Linus Torvalds and others, and reading the related G + discussions made me aware that many OSS developers don't realize what a deep hole we are in. The desktop Linux suckage we are seeing today - on basically all the major Linux distributions - are the final symptoms of mistakes made 10-20 years ago - the death cries of a platform. Desktop Linux distributions are trying to 'own' 20 thousand application packages consisting of over a billion lines of code and have created parallel, mostly closed ecosystems around them. The typical update latency for an app is weeks for security fixes (sometimes months) and months (sometimes years) for major features. They are centrally planned, hierarchical organizations instead of distributed, democratic free societies. "

[2] Robert Staudinger: Distribution-independent packages with auto package - one for all . Linux magazine 2006/02. February 1, 2006. Accessed April 11, 2012: “ Although they work on the same principle, RPMs from Suse 9.2 do not run under Suse 9.3, and certainly not under Red Hat. The Autopackage project relies on a uniform standard for the creation of installation packages. The individual packages resolve their dependencies themselves. "

[leonard2007-3] Thomas Leonard: Decentralized Installation Systems ( English ) osnews.com. January 16, 2007. Retrieved May 3, 2012.

[portableapps-4] Simon Peter: AppImageKit Documentation 1.0 (PDF; 38 kB) PortableLinuxApps.org. Pp. 2-3. 2010. Archived from the original on November 29, 2010. Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Retrieved July 29, 2011: “ Linux distributions mostly use package managers for everything. While this is perceived superior to Windows and the Mac by many Linux enthusiasts, it also creates a number of disadvantages: Centralization […], Duplication of effort […], Need to be online […], No recent apps on mature operating systems […], No way to use multiple versions in parallel […], Not easy to move an app from one machine to another […]. The AppImage format has been created with specific objectives in mind: Be distribution-agnostic […], Maintain binary compatibility […] " @1@ 2

[molnar2012-5] Ingo Molnár: Technology: What ails the Linux desktop? Part II. ( English ) plus.google.com. March 17, 2012. Retrieved June 16, 2012: “ So, to fix desktop Linux we need a radically different software distribution model: less of a cathedral, more of a bazaar. […] - totally flat package dependencies (ie a package update does not forcibly pull in other package updates) […] - a guaranteed ABI platform going forward (once a package is installed it will never break or require forced updates again). Users want to be free of update pressure from the rest of the system, if they choose to. "