×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux 2.6.26 Out

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the kernel-about-town dept.

Linux 288

diegocgteleline.es writes "After three months, Linux 2.6.26 has been released. It adds support for read-only bind mounts, x86 PAT (Page Attribute Tables), PCI Express ASPM (Active State Power Management), ports of KVM to IA64, S390 and PPC, other KVM improvements including basic paravirtualization support, preliminary support of the future 802.11s wireless mesh standard, much improved webcam support thanks to a driver for UVC devices, a built-in memory tester, a kernel debugger, BDI statistics and parameters exposure in /sys/class/bdi, a new /proc/PID/mountinfo file for more accurate information about mounts, per-process securebits, device white-list for containers users, support for the OLPC, some new drivers and many small improvements. Here is the full list of changes."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

288 comments

init post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24180887)

first

Re:init post (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181029)

Ugh, still no token ring support. And it's distributed under the GPL License. I think I'll recommend all my fortune 500 clients stick with windows server 2003.

Re:init post (4, Informative)

Anonymous Conrad (600139) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181243)

Ugh, still no token ring support.

It had token ring support circa 2000 and you can probably resurrect the drivers if you need it.

OTOH if you're still using Token Ring you probably have Madge or Olicom cards whereas the best Linux support was for chipsets like the IBM Olympic.

Re:init post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24182117)

I already put my Fortune 500 clients on Arcnet. Still supported in the mainline kernel! YEAH!

Kernel debugger? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24180891)

Err, it took them 10+ years to implement a kernel debugger? (what's a kernel debugger anyway?)

Re:Kernel debugger? (5, Funny)

HvitRavn (813950) | more than 5 years ago | (#24180933)

I found this article on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] but it doesn't say much except "A kernel debugger is a debugger present in some kernels to ease debugging and kernel development by the kernel developers". Can someone whip out a cluebat please?

Re:Kernel debugger? (3, Informative)

dahitokiri (1113461) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181057)

If I'm understanding correctly, I believe they're talking about a mode in which you can debug kernel level events. You have a client PC (the debuggee) and the server PC (the debugger). They're usually connected over a serial cable.

Re:Kernel debugger? (5, Interesting)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181497)

A kernel debugger is a program you can run from one computer, generally via a serial patch cable or some such, that lets you step through the kernel code running on another computer. It's like a normal debugger, but remote.

Linux has had kernel debuggers for years, but Linus never wanted it in mainline [linuxmafia.com] , so it was always a patch, and sometimes didn't work on the latest kernel. Now, it's part of the kernel (I don't see any links to why Linus changed his mind, but you might be able to find something on LKML if you look).

Anyway, I think this is good news. I understand why Linus never wanted a debugger in the kernel, but I disagree with him on two points. First, even developers who have a good understanding of the code can get work done faster if they use a debugger. Using a debugger does not automatically relegate you to someone who doesn't have a good understanding of things, as Linus would have you believe (i.e. there's a difference between needing a debugger and being more productive with a debugger).

Second, there are a lot of people these days who just fix bugs, or just want to debug their own tiny kernel patch. I.e. people who don't have a full understanding of the system but who need to get something done. It's good that these people are now first-class citizens. They likely will never write a new kernel subsystem, but maybe they'll fix a few bugs and make life better for the rest of us.

Does it disturb anyone else? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24180897)

It adds support for read-only bind mounts, x86 PAT (Page Attribute Tables), PCI Express ASPM (Active State Power Management), ports of KVM to IA64, S390 and PPC, other KVM improvements including basic paravirtualization support, preliminar support of the future 802.11s wireless mesh standard, much improved webcam support thanks to a driver for UVC devices, a built-in memory tester, a kernel debugger, BDI statistics and parameters exposure in /sys/class/bdi,

Does it disturb anyone else how many words the bsdm & linux kernel community have in common? (this is not a troll).

Frankly, I blame IBM.

Ah but does it run Linux?!? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24180907)

Just wondering... ;)

Re:Ah but does it run Linux?!? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24180963)

Yes it does, and I can even imagine a beowulf cluster of them!

Re:Ah but does it run Linux?!? (3, Funny)

Jellybob (597204) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181937)

Sure, just install Xen, and then you can indeed make it run Linux.

If you're feeling really masochistic, you could even create a beowulf cluster of Linux boxes, running Linux, with Linux running on them. /me watches his head explode.

Yes, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24180955)

But does it run Linux?

Re:Yes, (0)

dogdick (1290032) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181031)

Does it run linux!? Of course not in Soviet Russia Linux runs it!!!!!!!!

I for one welcome our new linux overlords!!!!
My eyes! The goggles! They do nothing!

FOR FUCKS SAKE NO MORE MEMES[CONNECTION LOST]

Intelfb still broke (5, Informative)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#24180967)

They have still not enabled mode switching in the intelfb driver on laptops, meaning that I am forced to use ugly, unaccelerated VESA instead of the right driver for this sytem. This bug has been reported on kernel dev mailing lists and forums for at least three years, but no one with the skills seems to want to fix it.

Re:Intelfb still broke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181157)

I was actually going to this thread to say "So, what did they break?"

Since well, it's Linux after all.

Re:Intelfb still broke (3, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181577)

They have still not enabled mode switching in the intelfb driver on laptops

Do any desktops really need a fb, or is it only so that there can be pretty pictures during boot, before [xkg]dm starts?

Re:Intelfb still broke (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181689)

Well, while I am happy as can be to use the VESA fb, writing of a bug in an existing driver simply because "no one needs it" (when as the original poster has demonstrated a desire for it) is just a bit disingenuous. Software developers tend to make really poor judges when it comes to features that users need. If you want to develop for an audience other than yourself, the best strategy is to listen to what the users ask for, and then implement that, assuming it doesn't break anything and that it's possible.

Re:Intelfb still broke (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181859)

Well, users aren't always right about what they want either, especially when they request specific technical implementation details. The parent poster didn't say what they wanted to actually do or accomplish, just listed a specific technical item that hasn't been fixed. When "users" start asking for implementation details, you're probably better off either not doing anything or getting to the heart of the user's actual needs before implementing anything.

Re:Intelfb still broke (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24182165)

Faulty assumption: develop for an audience other than yourself

A lot of developers I know only do as much coding as necessary to do/fix whatever they are having a problem with. If you have a problem with it, fix it yourself or give incentives to someone else to do it for you.

Re:Intelfb still broke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24182131)

That's the sort of behavior that separates most Linux distros from Mac OS X. I'm not even trying to be flamebait here.

Turning around this way of thinking is what I've been trying to do at the Ubuntu team for a while, but it's difficult because Linux developers are more interested in fixing other problems. Which isn't bad, of course, but it's really this sort of cleanliness that deserved Apple the "it just works" slogan, and it'd be nice if Linux distros could do the same.

Re:Intelfb still broke (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181651)

Thats because frame buffers were one of those seemed-a-good-idea-at-the-time. But that time is passed.

Re:Intelfb still broke (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182187)

> Thats because frame buffers were one of those seemed-a-good-idea-at-the-time. But that time is passed.

Well, gee, that's exactly what I think about X. I'd much rather get rid of the huge bloaty X.Org and work on the framebuffer console, as I am doing right now. If there was kernel mode switching support, I'd actually upgrade my video card again. Currently my nVidia 7600 is the best one supported (correct me if I'm wrong). I would certainly like to get something newer to play Windows games faster, but if I can't still have my framebuffer console, the deal is off.

Clever new tools for kernel config (5, Insightful)

FeatureBug (158235) | more than 5 years ago | (#24180999)

What I would like to see more emphasis on in future kernels is a discussion of possible clever new tools and methods for configuring the thousands of kernel config options. None of the existing in-kernel-tree or out-of-tree config tools seems ideal.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config (4, Interesting)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181715)

Aye - would be great if there would be tool that I could eg. say "Ok, right now, at this moment, I have all my hot-pluggable USB/PCI devices plugged in, please detect and configure the options as needed". After all, that's what I do with a new comp: use lspci and similar tools to find out what's in the guts of the machine and then set options appropriately in menuconfig.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config (3, Insightful)

repvik (96666) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181849)

um... you have a distro that doesn't hotplug all the necessary modules for you?

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config (3, Informative)

nawcom (941663) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182359)

You aren't following at all; the concept is that the modules havent been compiled and linked yet. More classic development distributions like Slackware don't provide 2 gigs of precompiled modules for different kernels (it usually comes with enough to pick up your hard drive, chipsets, etc and boot. That's where the kernel source comes in. you take 3 minutes and set it up and another 3 minutes (or hours, if you prefer the good-ol 386) to compile it. It's always been a ton faster than fighting with precompiled module dependency hell. So custom compiling the kernel requires experience and skill, something a good ol' linux user has and loves.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182345)

Thats what udev does. And it does it without even recompiling the kernel - it works with standard kernels. Awesome!

Seriously, better config tools are not needed because normal people does NOT need to compile the kernel. Compiling your kernel "just because" it's like recompiling libc. You CAN do it, but not many people does it and people who does do not need better config tools.

802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware? (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181011)

Just curious,

If you have compatible wlan hardware like Atheros [atheros.com] , would it be possible to configure a mesh network on them? Or do you need special 11s compatible hardware?

I know the OLPC has specialized hardware for this.

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware? (3, Insightful)

Shadow_139 (707786) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181077)

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware? (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181425)

I guess that is a yes? Or yes, sometimes? THat still does not give the state of that project.

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware? (1)

kitgerrits (1034262) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182095)

dd-wrt is a special firmware for Linksys WRT54G (and compatible) embedded routers.
Chancec are that someone has written it, but I'm not sure it will run on any other type of kernel/hardware.
At best you'll be able to port the functionality to x86 hardware and generic (or caompatible) network cards.
At worst, you'll have a bunch of gibberich that only makes sense if you know the peculiarities of the hardware.

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware? (4, Informative)

Klaus_1250 (987230) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181939)

802.11s != OLSRv2 . 802.11s seems to work at the MAC layer, whereas OLSRv2 works at the IP layer. They are not the same. There are quite a few mesh networking protocols out there and in development, but I haven't seen a clear winner yet.

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware? (1)

HRogge (973545) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182271)

802.11s is designed for small mesh networks (I think the recent draft talks about a maximum of 32 nodes).

OLSR is used in much larger networks (at the moment 700+ nodes for the www.olsr.org implementation).

but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181047)

does it run photoshop yet?

Re:but... (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181747)

Yes. [gimp.org]

(Seriously, my wife used the photoshop trial version for a month and loved it. I asked her to spend a month on gimp just to see if the "free" version was good enough. She couldn't be happier - she can do digitial scrapbooking with all sorts of cool effects without spending money. And it's been over six months now, and she hasn't once brought up a desire to go back to photoshop.)

Real writeable NTFS? (2, Insightful)

redelm (54142) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181059)

OK, 2.6.26 is out, and kudos for all the good work. But where is a truly writeable NTFS? Many larger USB drives are shipping with this pre-installed, so true write support is needed in the kernel.

AFAIK, current kernel "write" support does not including creating files or directors (presumably just modifying/appending to existing files).

I've tried ntfsprogs, but not got it to compile x86_64.

Re:Real writeable NTFS? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181137)

http://www.ntfs-3g.org/

Not sure why it isn't in the kernel. But works great for me.

Re:Real writeable NTFS? (4, Informative)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181433)

Old NTFS stuff used to be really, really slow. Is ntfs-3g as fast as other filesystems on Linux, now?

Re:Real writeable NTFS? (5, Interesting)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181893)

Not sure why it isn't in the kernel.

Because it doesn't need to be. Really, that's all there is to it. The old one took a long time to develop because kernel code is harder. The only real reason why you'd want an in-kernel driver is if you wanted to boot off of NTFS. The in-kernel driver is good enough to let you do that via a loopback file on the NTFS volume, so the rest can be in userspace.

Apple uses that, too, and I don't hear people complaining about Apple's support for NTFS. People who still complain about this are living in the past, or are hitting one of the few remaining strange corner cases that aren't yet supported (and I very much doubt you are).

Re:Real writeable NTFS? (2, Informative)

Erikderzweite (1146485) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182113)

Because ntfs-3g works through fuse - filesystem in userspace. It isn't a kernelspace filesystem.

Re:Real writeable NTFS? (3, Informative)

dahitokiri (1113461) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181237)

Try NTFS-3G [ntfs-3g.org] .

Also, blame Microsoft [microsoft.com] for not releasing the technical specs behind the FS. Reverse-engineering a filesystem (especially one that MS likes to change often) isn't exactly easy.

Finally, you can always reformat "larger USB drives" into a FS that's more efficient (ext3, reiserfs).

Re:Real writeable NTFS? (4, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181247)

Careful, some of those other filesystems really kill performance.

Re:Real writeable NTFS? (5, Funny)

plus_M (1188595) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181549)

You know, this joke has been beaten to death for the past month or so. Can't you lay it to rest?

Re:Real writeable NTFS? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181259)

The in kernel support for ntfs is an ancient relic. Use fuse and ntfs-3g instead. Fedora, Mandriva and Ubuntu even have it preinstalled.

Re:Real writeable NTFS? (1)

plasticsquirrel (637166) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181371)

You aren't stuck with NTFS on them. You can always reformat a flash drive as a large FAT32 volume (or any other FS) from Linux. Windows can use a large FAT32 FS, but it can't create one, so Linux can be used as a workaround. Example command:

$ mkfs.vfat -F 32 /dev/sda1

Good point, but... (5, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181741)

...if your friend/colleague/whatever wants to use an NTFS-formatted drive on your computer, he might be a little unhappy if you reformat it.

I put NTFS support on my Linux computers and Ext2/Ext3 support [fs-driver.org] (and a proper formatting tool) on my Windows computers. It's called interoperability.

Re:Good point, but... (4, Funny)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182079)

...if your friend/colleague/whatever wants to use an NTFS-formatted drive on your computer, he might be a little unhappy if you reformat it.

I put NTFS support on my Linux computers and Ext2/Ext3 support [fs-driver.org] (and a proper formatting tool) on my Windows computers. It's called interoperability.

Nice one

Can't figure out if I should moderate as insightful, funny or +1 quality bitchsmack

Re:Real writeable NTFS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181835)

I don't want Microsoft eye-pee in Linux and while I can sympathize with the use case, I can think of many cases where I'd like to avoid NTFS even on a machine running windows. Perhaps you should be asking where is Microsoft and Apple OS native support for XFS and ext3?

Good Featurelist (5, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181171)

I wish every kernel release announcement included a highlevel featurelist like that. Not just a ChangeLog, as each bug is fixed or small feature is added. But rather a fairly highlevel list of new and improved (and fixed) features like the one in this Slashdot story. Best if in the announcement itself, but at the very least always in the release package.

That way most of us can decide whether to upgrade, or to wait (perhaps for the x.1 version, which is typically a higher quality bugfixed delivery). Since kernel upgrades require rebooting (and again to downgrade after test), knowing whether to ignore a release based on its highlevel upgraded features itemization is a very effective announcement feature, which makes all of us using the releases more productive.

Re:Good Featurelist (0, Redundant)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181285)

Um, did you try clicking on the link?

http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_26 [kernelnewbies.org]

That's a pretty highlevel featurelist

Re:Good Featurelist (2, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181649)

Er, that's why I was congratulating this featurelist. I'd like to see that kind of list in every release, and that link proves that it's possible. Great progress.

But a link in a Slashdot story to a KernelNewbies.org wiki page isn't the same as the actual kernel release announcement pointing to such a featurelist in the actual kernel package. Which would be the even better progress that I asked for. Which I think practically everyone would like to see happen.

Re:Good Featurelist (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182213)

Uh sorry, I misread your original post :)

Re:Good Featurelist (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182305)

Probably my fault for not being more clear.

FWIW, there's no such FeatureList page, even at KN.o (that I can find), for kernel releases much prior to 2.2.26 . So we really do have to congratulate people for delivering this valuable service, so it becomes the default, rather than a mere fad that disappears.

is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181231)

fixed? it eatz up my battery like you know who ...

Re:is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core (2, Informative)

something_wicked_thi (918168) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182091)

Did you file a bug report? Did they mark it fixed? If you answered no to either of these questions, you may be a whiner. You also may not know what you're talking about as you said "20+k interrupts" without actually specifying an amount of time or what type of interrupts they were, and you came and posted here rather than checking the change logs for things like, "dual core", "interrupt storm" or any other keywords.

Re:is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24182133)

nope :(

Wakeups-from-idle per second : 26035.8 interval: 5.0s

Linux localhost 2.6.26-080714 #1 SMP Mon Jul 14 23:53:58 JST 2008 i686 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7250 @ 2.00GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

Translation please? (1, Informative)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181239)

Some of these I know what they are, and some I can guess at. But what is:

read-only bind mounts
x86 PAT (Page Attribute Tables)
basic paravirtualization support
BDI statistics and parameters
per-process securebits
device white-list for containers users

And what might I see as a result of these improvements somewhere along the line?

Re:Translation please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181339)

and how bout some RTFM?

i'll start with the frist one:
man mount /bind

Re:Translation please? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181373)

Ummm, I don't think you understand how Gnu/Linux works just yet... I'll point you to the right link: www.google.com

Shuttleworth Sees Possibility For (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181335)

Shuttleworth Sees Possibility For a QT-based Linux kernel

Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (0, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181407)

Is it really accurate to title this as "Linux 2.6.26 Out"? The article is talking about Linux kernel 2.6.26, isn't it? Is there actually a version of Linux somewhere that strictly follows this version numbering system? It's great to see these new features added on to the Linux kernel, but really, if someone saw this and then tried to find "Linux 2.6.26" for their own system, does it exist somewhere as a downloadable OS?

I am asking this question as a FreeBSD guy, who doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to the numbering of the Linux world.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181511)

it exist somewhere as a downloadable OS?

Fsck, no. It's a kernel.

-- feeding the trolls

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (4, Insightful)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181575)

Technically, "Linux" is the kernel, and there is no "Linux" OS. Of course, the various distros are generally referred to as "Linux" distros, which really doesn't help matters any. I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181737)

there is no "Linux" OS

That was what I thought. I just wanted to make sure nobody squeezed in an official "Linux OS" when I wasn't paying attention.

However, I'm not sure that it is helpful from a consumer (ie, "desktop linux") standpoint to say that "Linux 2.6.26 is out" if it refers to the kernel and not the OS (regardless of the fact that "Linux" actually refers to the Kernel and not any particular OS). I would think that when this happens, there are likely fair numbers of Linux newbies that will start running around looking for where to get this new version to upgrade their existing install - or to install on Grandma's windows 98 box.

I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.

I'm not sure where exactly you're going with that. Though I will concede that FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD all use their own fascinating and unique numbering systems (as well as their own kernels). And of course the three have varying relationships to the "original" BSD.

Which of course some like to compare to the original LSD, but that's a whole different discussion.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (4, Insightful)

Nutria (679911) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182107)

I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.

I'm not sure where exactly you're going with that

What he(?) means is that just as {Free,Net,Open}BSD are complete operating systems, so are Linux distros like Debian, Fedora, etc.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (5, Informative)

plus_M (1188595) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181605)

Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

Yes. When people refer to entire distributions as "linux" they are being technically incorrect, as the GNU folks are kind to point out at the drop of a hat. The entire operating system is GNU/Linux - Linux is just the kernel.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (2, Insightful)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181803)

The entire operating system is GNU/Linux - [...]

Because libc+shellutils+gcc is so much more relevant than X, KDE/e17/etc, the package manager, ...

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181807)

The entire operating system is GNU/Linux -

No, I think the entire operating system is GNU/Linux/X/Mozilla/QT/GTK/*insert favorite WM*/whatever else. If you refer to the entire OS as GNU/Linux, you are neglecting other key parts of the OS. If you call Windows NT, just NT there is no problems with it, the various divisions of MS don't call it Windows/DOS/NT do they? Linux is the name of the kernel, NT is the name of another kernel, yet I see both being referred to as Linux or NT, the difference is MS isn't always correcting you.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182037)

The entire operating system is GNU/Linux - Linux is just the kernel.

So then with GNU/Linux, you can boot your computer, login, and do shell functions, yes?

Conversely, if you had only the Linux kernel (or "just Linux") what could you accomplish? Anything beyond just booting the computer? Can the Linux kernel boot without GNU?

I don't know where the defined point is where one ends and the other begins.

Although couldn't you build a fair number of the GNU functions into the Linux kernel if you felt so inclined? Could a custom Linux kernel (say based on 2.6.26 for the sake of argument) be built into an operating system of its own?

And no, this isn't a BSD/Linux pissing contest. I couldn't even answer the last question for FreeBSD myself.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182331)

When the kernel is done it loads /sbin/init. This is changable - it doesn't HAVE to run that. This could be some kind of shell, but usually init goes and starts services, configures hardware, starts networking, etc.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181631)

Because Linux is just the kernel, and calling Linux distributions "version[s] of Linux" is wrong.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (1)

LiquidFire_HK (952632) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181725)

Linux is the name of the kernel itself. It would be redundant to specify it additionally. Complete systems including the kernel and applications are commonly called distributions.

OTOH, a lot of people (somewhat wrongly) refer to the entire distros as "Linux", and this is where your confusion comes from.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (1)

kitgerrits (1034262) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182179)

OK, I'll bite.

Linux 2.6.26 literally refers to the Linux Kernel.
What other packages you put in your distribution is your own business ;-)

(Keep in mind, there is actually no 'Linux O/S' There are merely O/S Distributions based on the Linux Kernel and some (GNU) packages)

Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus (5, Informative)

tucuxi (1146347) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181417)

Reading on it, it seems that Linus never has been a great fan of kernel debuggers. From a famous post [lwn.net] ,

I happen to believe that not having a kernel debugger forces people to think about their problem on a different level than with a debugger. I think that without a debugger, you don't get into that mindset where you know how it behaves, and then you fix it from there. Without a debugger, you tend to think about problems another way. You want to understand things on a different _level_. [...]

I agree that stepping with a debugger instead of thinking real hard about the code (and using abundant log statements) is generally a waste of time, and that expecting to catch rare occurrences of weird race conditions with a debugger is not worth the effort. Sloppy programmers don't take the time to think, and rely too much on fixing what they could have not broken. Unit tests, although more expensive to code, can be reused many times - debugging sessions are one-shot.

On the other hand, even good programmers can get stuck and benefit from a debugger every once and then. I guess this argument finally won the day.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus (1)

dahitokiri (1113461) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181561)

Heh, another interesting dichotomy between Microsoft and Linux. I debug Vista using a kernel debugger for Microsoft; they seem to rely on it rather heavily.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181897)

linus is petrified that some good kernel debugger practicioner will figure out how to restore the file shred function to the kernel, and to restore the interface to the shredder thru an easy grafical interface like konqueror. Then he will lose his bribe from big business.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus (1)

fireboy1919 (257783) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182105)

Big thing that a debugger generally gives you isn't the trace through the code.

Its look at the state of the system when you know there's a problem.

Now you can probably get there by using logs...assuming that someone has written all of the state information you need into the logs for that particular instance.

If they haven't, though, frequently that'll save a lot of time - ESPECIALLY when you're debugging other people's code.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus (5, Informative)

Fallen Andy (795676) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182229)

These days I'm too lazy to bang around fiddling with OS's, but back in the early 80's when I ported the UCSD p-system to many machines, we didn't usually have *any* kind of debugger except our own log statements. So, one day I got given an Orion Instruments logic analyser (which could do hardware debugging for MC68000). Beautiful. Best productivity disabler I've ever seen. On the other hand, because of a really bad experience on my first p-system port, my own diagnostic code for a later port made me screw up my deadlines badly.

With high level code, a decent debugger is really really useful. With low level code, not so much.

(It's amazing though how many high level programmers don't understand the way debugging changes program behaviour (variable initialization etc - don't even mention heisenbugs)).

The best ever debugger is the "cardboard man". If you really get stuck you explain the code to anyone (including the cleaner). That way, (even though the cleaner doesn't understand anything) you exercise another part of your mind and *see* the problem (... well here we shift left (wtf? right?) oops).

Andy

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus (2, Informative)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182233)

On the other hand, even good programmers can get stuck and benefit from a debugger every once and then. I guess this argument finally won the day.

Actually after programming in C the past five years I find a debugger completely worthless. Pretty much all problems boil down to:

1) memory / pointer errors
2) usage errors (bad casts, unset variables)
3) code too complicated to follow by reading

The first is covered by valgrind, or if your system doesn't have valgrind then first writing for x86 then porting. The second is covered well by gcc warnings. The third is covered better by logging than a debugger, or better yet just not writing complicated software in the first place.

Before that, in Java the first problem just did not exist, the second was covered by compiler warnings (and no such thing as unset variables), and the third was the same, logging.

So except the kernel, where there's no valgrind, what do you actually use a debugger for?

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus (1)

Black Art (3335) | more than 5 years ago | (#24182319)

The reason I want a kernel debugger is so I can figure out where the kernel was when the whole system locked up. Trying to guess takes a whole lot of time. (Yes, kernel lockups are rare, but I think I am fighting bad hardware that is not handled gracefully by the kernel.)

Frozen kernels are the hardest to debug. (Insert Korn shell reference here.)

Kernel Debugger (2, Interesting)

wvdmc (1227780) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181483)

While the debugger is, in fact, remote, it appears that perhaps the Linux Kernal really is JUST NOW getting an actual debugger. From TFA:

For many years Linux has not included a kernel debugger. Linus Torvalds vetoed them for years, for reasons that he explained quite well in a know email: "When things crash and you fsck and you didn't even get a clue about what went wrong, you get frustrated. Tough. There are two kinds of reactions to that: you start being careful, or you start whining about a kernel debugger [...] I happen to believe that not having a kernel debugger forces people to think about their problem on a different level than with a debugger. I think that without a debugger, you don't get into that mindset where you know how it behaves, and then you fix it from there. Without a debugger, you tend to think about problems another way. You want to understand things on a different _level_." Despite of those objections, many people wanted a debugger and KGDB is finally going in. It's a remote debugger, it needs two machines. x86 and sparc machines are supported

fakeRAID5 in please (1)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 5 years ago | (#24181591)

When are the patches at http://people.redhat.com/heinzm/sw/dm/dm-raid45/ [redhat.com] going to be included? I'm running a dualboot box so have to run the BIOS-fakeraid that works with Windows. I had to run through a few hoops to get it working with 2.6.24 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/220493 comments) and for now it works...but what if I want to update kernel at some point?

Oblig. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24181599)

Yes, but does it run linux....oh wait...

HP hs2300! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24182169)

> Add HP hs2300 Broadband Wireless Module to sierra.c

Yay! Support for the built-in GSM modem in my HP2710p!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...