Beta
×

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 2.6.27 Out

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the not-all-fancy-like-gnu dept.

Software 452

diegocgteleline.es writes "Linux 2.6.27 has been released. It adds a new filesystem (UBIFS) for 'pure' flash-based storage, the page-cache is now lockless, much improved Direct I/O scalability and performance, delayed allocation support for ext4, multiqueue networking, data integrity support in the block layer, a function tracer, a mmio tracer, sysprof support, improved webcam support, support for the Intel wifi 5000 series and RTL8187B network cards, a new ath9k driver for the Atheros AR5008 and AR9001 chipsets, more new drivers, and many other improvements and fixes. Full list of changes can be found here."

cancel ×

452 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Linux 2.6.27 Out (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324063)


Linux 2.6.27 is out, OpenBSD 4.4 is in!

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (1, Offtopic)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324151)

If only I still had my mod points.

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (5, Funny)

AJWM (19027) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324241)

I've got some, what do you want moderated?

Oh, wait...

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (5, Funny)

baeksu (715271) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324267)

Not to worry, I can help!

No, wait...crap.

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324413)

Okay, he can use my mod points because I'm posting AC. Now if only I had a Slashdot account...

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (5, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324421)

One of these days, the admins should give Anonymous Coward some mod points.

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (5, Funny)

fpophoto (1382097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324465)

One of these days, the admins should give Anonymous Coward some mod points.

Mod parent up!

If nothing else, it would just totally blow the AC's mind when he cruised by here. "WTF? Mod points?"

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324495)

One of these days, I'm going to chop you into little pieces.

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (4, Funny)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324605)

One of these days, Coward -POW, right in the kisser!

Oh yeah. (5, Insightful)

Almahtar (991773) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324653)

It'd be the best April Fools day ever.

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324663)

jeez! geezers...

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (0)

complete loony (663508) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324255)

... of the closet?

Linux 2.6.27 is out there baby and loving every minute of it.

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324577)

Linux 2.6.27 is a member of the GNAA baby!

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324613)

Gays and niggers in one association?! And who gets the banana?

Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out (5, Interesting)

frankm_slashdot (614772) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324569)

sad part is i just pre-ordered the openbsd 4.4 cd set... hah. im not sure if i should be proud or ashamed.

then again, i sometimes think im the last of the right-os-for-the-job heretics... openbsd on my firewall. solaris (with zfs) on my fileserver... mac os x on my main desktop... (i dabble in photoshop and video.. mostly failed fark contests. ha) and windows vista on my macbook pro (along side of os x of course)... because i do a lot of autocad/solidworks stuff on the side. my webserver runs gentoo..

i guess you could call me a glutton for punishment.

uname -a (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324079)

Linux grumpy 2.6.27-6-generic #1 SMP Tue Oct 7 04:15:04 UTC 2008 i686 GNU/Linux huh? has ubuntu been using early releases or something?

Re:uname -a (1, Informative)

gringer (252588) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324133)

Based on what I'm used to ubuntu doing, they're probably treating one of the later release candidates (of which this is the tenth) as something "good enough" for ubuntu 2.6.27.

Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubuntu? (-1, Troll)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324349)

You are clearly a Linux newbie since you think there is such a thing as "Ubuntu 2.6.27"
 
As a newbie, you need to know that Ubuntu is the Linux equivalent of Windows. Mandriva is rock solid.
 
That being said, a Linux Kernel RC-1 is always "good enough" for the desktop user. It is certainly more than good enough for a security conscious anal retentive sysadmin for fortune 500 companies. Don't believe it? Maybe you don't know how many fortune 500 company CTOs are incompetent enough to allow Wind[sl|bl]ows on their network, or quite amazingly, use M$ Virus Attractors as servers.
 

Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt (5, Insightful)

oatworm (969674) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324453)

If viruses were unique to Windows, we wouldn't have "root"kits. Instead, they'd be "Administrator"kits or perhaps "SYSTEM"kits.

Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt (2, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324497)

If there were viruses on VMS (well, other than via DCL scripting in e-mail subject lines), I guess we'd be calling them SYS$kits.

Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt (1)

Kooty-Sentinel (1291050) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324501)

There are too many 'system' accounts in Windows. SYSTEM, Local System, Network Service..... and Administrator.

I'll stick to root, 'thank you very much'.

Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt (5, Informative)

oatworm (969674) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324581)

I know this is going to get modded as "off topic", but let's cover this...

SYSTEM and Local System are basically one and the same, and are almost perfectly synonymous with root. Network Service would be the equivalent of the "nobody" user - i.e. an account that you can use to run low-privilege services. Administrator would be the same as a user with administrative privileges in Linux (perhaps someone in the sudoers list). The trouble, of course, was that, until Vista/2008 came along, it was trivially easy for an Administrator to escalate to SYSTEM - you just had to run a scheduled job in interactive mode (think of a cron job with no password required) and you'd not only have root access, you'd also have access to the current user's console. For an administrator, this came in handy - of course, what was handy and convenient for an administrator was just as handy and convenient for someone else.

Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324661)

SHUT THE FUCK UP

Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt (4, Insightful)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324619)

You should probably learn the difference between a root kit and a virus before you post to Slashdot in the future.
 
A fair number of people here actually have a clue, and thus do know the difference.
 
Might I recommend digg [digg.com] so that - in context - you sound like you have a clue?

Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt (5, Insightful)

fpophoto (1382097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324505)

You are clearly one of those arrogant assholes since you think there is such a thing as a pecking order in cyberspace.

As an arrogant asshole, you need to know you are one of the core reasons why Linux is only slowly gaining acceptance by the masses because you're too good to stoop to a "newbie's" level.

That being said...nah, you're still an arrogant asshole.

Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt (-1, Troll)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324655)

ROTFLMAO
 
Thanks for that, I needed a good laugh! ;-)
 
Homework: Learn what a "pecking order" is, and learn the defintion of cyberspace.
 
Extra Credit: Learn the defintion of "arrogant"

Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt (-1, Troll)

fpophoto (1382097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324679)

Jesus, you rushed that so bad you mispelled definition twice!

Guess I'm not the one who need the homework, Mr. Epic Fail.

Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt (-1, Offtopic)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324719)

Jesus, you rushed that so bad you mispelled definition twice!

While I appreciate (and understand) why you would think I am Jesus, please allow me to introduce myself ...

Advisory (1, Offtopic)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324609)

Warning: Do not feed the Twitter!

Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt (0, Troll)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324697)

I'm baffled. Since when was acknowledging "Elephant in the Room" taboo?
 
^H^H^H
 
#Zero__kelvin@Slashdot>never-mind

Not in upcoming Debian (5, Interesting)

gringer (252588) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324107)

It's a shame this won't be in the upcoming Lenny release of Debian. The in-kernel support for heaps of webcams via gspca is a very nice user-visible element of this release.

http://release.debian.org/emails/release-update-200808 [debian.org]

Although, I guess they made the decision for 2.6.26 before they realised that a September release would be an impossible target.

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (3, Insightful)

Warped-Reality (125140) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324137)

So? Download and build your own kernel..

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324297)

It's a shame this won't be in the upcoming Lenny release of Debian. The in-kernel support for heaps of webcams via gspca is a very nice user-visible element of this release.

Debian never paid much attention to desktop features, may I suggest Ubuntu 8.10 [ubuntu.com] ?

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (4, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324333)

may I suggest Ubuntu 8.10 [ubuntu.com] ?

You have my permission.

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (4, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324435)

Not so fast. Has he signed form WQ-37 and initialed C12-B first?

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (4, Funny)

martinw89 (1229324) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324523)

No, he's only filed a TPS report. He also missed that memo we all got.

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324553)

I believe you have my stapler?

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324567)

I believe you have my stapler?

No, this one isn't red.

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324491)

WTF are you smoking? I've been running Debian on the desktop for years before Ubuntu ever existed.

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324583)

I think he is referring to the lack of polish that Ubuntu has. I find Debian's default Gnome desktop atrocious. I prefer their KDE or their base install. Ubuntu, on the other hand, does a very good job with Gnome while Kubuntu lags.

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (2, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324611)

I think he is referring to the lack of polish that Ubuntu has.

s/Ubuntu/Debian/g

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324689)

WTF are you smoking? I've been running Debian on the desktop for years before Ubuntu ever existed.

So did I, as in I used to. Just because you're able to install the packages, doesn't make it any less true. I waited for a long time for basic niceties like a GUI installer, a nice splash screen when I didn't feel like reading the boot log and a million other smaller and bigger things that never came. And less than 18+ months release cycles, as testing could and did sometimes break, while stable was stuck in the stone age. I'm sorry but I have replaced Debian with something better, and I think you would see it too if you knew what you were missing.

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324607)

Debian never paid much attention to desktop features, may I suggest Ubuntu 8.10 [ubuntu.com] ?

No you may not. We are aware of that distro and have rejected it. We like Debian and use Debian. It is the best desktop system as far as I am concerned.

Re:Not in upcoming Debian (5, Funny)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324509)

Although, I guess they [Debian] made the decision for 2.6.26 before they realised that a September release would be an impossible target.

Yeah. Nobody could have predicted that a Debian release would be late.

This is a huge amount of work (5, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324121)

In only 3 months, all of this code has been completed and reviewed by multiple developers. This happens *every* three months. The pace at which the Linux kernel is moving and yet still maintaining quality is incredible. It is clearly the case that the Linux kernel has hit a new kind of critical mass and is now a form of software development that has never been seen before. The sheer number of people involved changes what is possible. If you suggested that every single change to the codebase be reviewed by multiple developers in a traditional proprietary software development house you would be, rightly, laughed at. There simply isn't the resources.

Re:This is a huge amount of work (2, Insightful)

XDirtypunkX (1290358) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324157)

Well, before we can say "maintaining quality" we need to let the kernel live in the real world for a little bit. Let's make sure motherboards aren't catching fire and disks aren't walking before we get too carried away.

Re:This is a huge amount of work (5, Informative)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324185)

Well, yes and no. The old LK dev model had unstable releases where bugs were expected. Now every release is stable, and bugs are truly anomalies.

Re:This is a huge amount of work (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324391)

Now every release is stable, and bugs are truly anomalies.

Or so the theory goes. Some of the early 2.6 releases were a bit dubious and I had my doubts when they announced there'd no longer be a development kernel but it seems to have settled in nicely now, don't know if it's developers making better code before including it in the kernel, Linus being stricter, closer cooperation wtih distros or more testing feedback but all the later ones have been quite good from what I understand. At any rate, the kernel isn't the most exciting part for me as it seems to have all the parts to run a nice desktop already - it's userspace drivers, X+extensions, Compiz and Gnome/KDE that make up most of my improvement wishlist...

Ambiguous, and not that Interesting... (0, Offtopic)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324575)

Well, before we can say "maintaining quality" we need to let the kernel live in the real world for a little bit. Let's make sure motherboards aren't catching fire and disks aren't walking before we get too carried away.

Well, yes and no. The old LK dev model had unstable releases where bugs were expected. Now every release is stable, and bugs are truly anomalies.

You ALMOST make sense if this were in an entirely different context. The parent suggested that this version is not real world tested, so it's too soon to speak of quality. You make it sound as if this new development model eliminates all bugs from stable releases. To the best of my knowledge, they've simply stopped releasing "unstable" versions.

So...
They didn't "have unstable releases", they released what was KNOWN to be unstable, development snapshots - IN BETWEEN what were considered to be stable releases. They don't therefore release more stable "stable" code simply because they stopped releasing unstable "unstable" code. Nothing you said supports that concept. The parent incredibly obviously suggested that there may be UNKNOWN stability issues. Why wouldn't this be true?

WTF were these five people smoking, and why did you write this so retardedly ambiguous in the first place?

Re:This is a huge amount of work (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324549)

Or network cards losing their memory. I'm looking at you, Intel.

Re:This is a huge amount of work (4, Interesting)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324223)

If you suggested that every single change to the codebase be reviewed by multiple developers in a traditional proprietary software development house you would be, rightly, laughed at. There simply isn't the resources.

Where I work, it's called "pair programming".

(If two programmers is enough to count as "multiple". Also, bug fixes are supposed to get an additional diff check.)

If you do it right, you not only save time by not-writing bugs you don't have to fix later, but you can also avoid wasting all sorts of time (writing the feature wrong, going down paths that could lead to disaster, or spinning your wheels and banging your head when you can't figure out something stupid like feeding rrdtool deltas when it expects raw counters...), and you can bring new developers up to speed on a code base very very quickly.

Re:This is a huge amount of work (2, Interesting)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324687)

that's a pretty interesting development technique. i'd never heard of it so i had to look it up [wikipedia.org] on wikipedia.

at first i'd assumed this was simply assigning a two person team for each development task, but turns out it's a much more involved methodology involving close cooperation and meticulous division of labor, with all duties being split between two separate roles of the driver and the observer/navigator.

the driver is the person coding, and the observer/navigator is responsible for reviewing the driver's code and acting as a safety net by catching errors. the observer also seems to be responsible for looking ahead and thinking about general strategy and long-term planning. this frees up the driver to focus completely on the immediate task of implementation.

apparently, two programmers using this technique are more than twice as productive as a single programmer. but i wonder if it wouldn't be incredibly boring being the observer and have to sit there watching someone else code. it might be good if the two programmers are about equally skilled and can learn from each other, but otherwise i think the observer might get bored and not pay attention to the code being written. and if he's also thinking about long-term strategy, he could easily be distracted and miss some of the bugs he's supposed to catch. perhaps simply having programmers partner up to get together and review each other's code, discuss problems/concerns, share insights/exchange thoughts, etc. every once in a while would accomplish the same thing without such a rigid structure.

Re:This is a huge amount of work (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324269)

Fanboi. Get some substance.

Be more specific (1)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324365)

What part of the original post do you consider incorrect or insincere?

He's right, you know. A project that large growing that quickly that still maintains the level of scrutiny and quality that the Linux kernel does is unheard of. It's unique. If all software worked that well the service part of our industry would be nearly non-existent.

Re:This is a huge amount of work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324601)

Fuckhead. Get off winblowz

Re:This is a huge amount of work (4, Informative)

cryptoluddite (658517) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324443)

In only 3 months, all of this code has been completed and reviewed by multiple developers. This happens *every* three months. ... It is clearly the case that the Linux kernel has hit a new kind of critical mass and is now a form of software development that has never been seen before.

Intel HDA audio still has static noise in the left channel since at least 2.6.20 kernel (probably before). This is a known problem and the solution is 'try random settings of some undocumented (outside the kernel source code) module parameters and hope it maybe works'.

This is on Dell hardware. model=dell3stack, position_fix=1(?). This hardware works perfectly under Windows, with no tweaking whatsoever. It worked under older linux kernels, which means they probably broke something.

The linux kernel is good, but just having a bunch of people look at the code means nothing unless they are actually finding and fixing problems people care about.

Re:This is a huge amount of work (5, Interesting)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324467)

Do you have this hardware? Any chance you could narrow down the versions it works on and the versions it doesn't?

This is a general problem with kernel development.. if you don't have the hardware, it's a bitch to test. Please do contribute your findings.

Re:This is a huge amount of work (4, Interesting)

cryptoluddite (658517) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324603)

Do you have this hardware? Any chance you could narrow down the versions it works on and the versions it doesn't?

Same hardware as this guy:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/266927 [launchpad.net]

System is at work... I would test except there are not any easy options for doing so there. Also, I realize that you can't be expected to fix hardware problems where you don't have the hardware... in fact I've personally seen code fail on one system and run perfectly on the exact same spec hardware sitting right next to it, with exactly the same software (ghosted).

Mostly I'm just pointing out that there are longstanding problems in linux... the original fanboy post was way over the top.

Re:This is a huge amount of work (1)

minus-sign (1371393) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324665)

8.5 of the full list of changes has several upgrades for audio drivers, including a list for hda capable motherboards. This might have solved the problem. Or it might not.The Linux theory is a proven system, but yes, it does not guarantee that every hole is plugged. Its a human system, not a perfect system.

AR5008 (4, Interesting)

log0n (18224) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324123)

Excellent! Macbook & Pro users can finally have wifi support.

Re:AR5008 (1)

jaxtherat (1165473) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324147)

We did before anyway, using OSX :P

Re:AR5008 (1)

CSMatt (1175471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324191)

I thought Apple machines used Broadcom chips.

Re:AR5008 (4, Informative)

Ian Alexander (997430) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324551)

Some do, some don't. It depends on the revision and particular model you're using. I'm on a Santa Rosa Macbook with Broadcom, but earlier revisions used Atheros.

Change naming scheme (5, Insightful)

reaktor (949798) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324129)

W00t lots of goodies in this one. So... about time to change from the 2.6.infinity_and_beyond scheme to something else. What say you? I think the 2.6.x should have been left behind when the scheduler changed.

Re:Change naming scheme (1)

collinstocks (1295204) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324289)

Mod parent up.

Not that doing so will actually effect change in the naming scheme...

(Oh, and I'm forgetting that there is no +1 Agree and -1 Disagree. Bummer.)

Re:Change naming scheme (5, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324439)

Well, they can't release a 2.7, as SCO has already declared that that's the kernel that has the proprietary code in it. (Y'see, the Master, who cunningly disguised his alien identity by calling himself Darl, made an error in the time calculations and ended up traveling back in time too many years. Now's our chance to really screw up the space/time continuum.)

Current Limiting? (2, Interesting)

um_atrain (810963) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324131)

Hmm, wonder if this new kernel will finally do something about power consumption in laptops...

Also, the kexec-based hibernation sounds interesting, hopefully new distro releases will start playing around with these.

Re:Current Limiting? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324301)

Are you trolling or are you just uninformed?

2) If you're using a laptop (or any desktop more recent than 2000) you have a 99.99% chance of hibernation working flawlessly in any Linux distro.

1) The kernel/Linux has long been doing an excellent job on using power-saving features of processors and peripherals. Either you weren't very happy on your hardware choices or you should upgrade your distro to a release from the last 12 months. :-/

Re:Current Limiting? (4, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324463)

Here's a thought. If they're using Gentoo on a 386SX, using the -git kernel tree, and having it auto-rebuild whenever there's a change, they'd never actually get far enough in recompiling to ever be able to boot up a new kernel.

'pure' flash devices (5, Interesting)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324177)

Before you get all excited about running UBIFS on your USB drive, take note: UBI is not for consumer flash media [infradead.org] . These devices already incorporate hardware to hide their flash nature so they look like a plain old block device to your OS. UBI is for pure flash devices that directly expose the quirks and distinct characteristics of the underlying media.

So what kind of flash hardware is this for? Embedded devices, apparently. But maybe as flash storage becomes more common, more devices will support raw access?

Re:'pure' flash devices (5, Insightful)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324247)

So what kind of flash hardware is this for? Embedded devices, apparently. But maybe as flash storage becomes more common, more devices will support raw access?

Olympus' xD card format essentially specifies a direct connection between the NAND flash chips and its external interface.

It's weird and proprietary, yes. However, it's already being done, and there are arguments to be had for minimizing the amount of circuitry on the memory card itself. Interacting directly with Flash isn't as uncommon as you might think it, and can be of huge benefits for portable/embedded devices that require low power consumption.

Re:'pure' flash devices (2, Interesting)

bendodge (998616) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324363)

How about SD cards? They appear to be rather low on circuitry.

Nope (1)

XanC (644172) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324649)

They still present a block device to the kernel. At least all the ones I've seen.

Re:'pure' flash devices (4, Interesting)

schwaang (667808) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324385)

It seems quite likely that OLPC will largely replace jffs2 with UBI [gmane.org] for the internal nand on the XO. Good news. Maybe this will apply to the Asus eee as and other solid-state drives as well.

Re:'pure' flash devices (4, Informative)

21mhz (443080) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324715)

Naturally upcoming Maemo (Nokia Internet Tablet) releases will feature ubifs, since much of the work on it has been done by Maemo Software kernel team.

Embedded devices for sure (5, Interesting)

Weaselmancer (533834) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324397)

Yeah, embedded devices definitely. It'll be awfully nice to see simple flash chips soldered onto a board rather than someone bolting an SD or compact flash socket onto them just so you can have a boot device.

Fragile, more expensive, and adds another physical item that can break. And not only that, but you can drop about 20-30 dollars worth of non-essential hardware from your design and still be on target. If you do any embedded work you know how big 20 dollars worth of hardware savings is. This new driver is *huge*.

Barely on v.2.6.27? Sheesh, Windows way past that. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324199)

Last I saw they were on version Windows 2000. The Linux is never gonna catch up!

Re:Barely on v.2.6.27? Sheesh, Windows way past th (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324245)

The periods are for book keeping, the real version is 2627. Much better than windows.

Also, what number is Vista?

Re:Barely on v.2.6.27? Sheesh, Windows way past th (5, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324265)

what number is Vista?

666

Re:Barely on v.2.6.27? Sheesh, Windows way past th (1)

vawarayer (1035638) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324279)

From The Free Dictionary [thefreedictionary.com] :

A distant view or prospect, especially one seen through an opening, as between rows of buildings or trees.

In other words: a freakin' work in progress made by people with obfucasted view. Personally, I prefer _stable_ version 2 dot somethin'.

Re:Barely on v.2.6.27? Sheesh, Windows way past th (1)

slyn (1111419) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324427)

Though tubal-cain is joking, he's kinda right. Vista is NT v6 and the next version is NT v7, hence its current codename being Windows Seven.

Huh??? (2, Funny)

twistah (194990) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324335)

LOL, 2.6?? We already have 9.0 here in the office.

Re:Huh??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324389)

Mod parent -1, n00b

Re:Huh??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324481)

I think you mean +1 n00b.

Re:Huh??? (3, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324475)

Your office is in the Panoptican Library on Gallifrey? Wasn't that destroyed in the Time War?

Re:Huh??? (4, Funny)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324563)

Wasn't that destroyed in the Time War?

That is will been destroyed in the time war. So nothing is stopped him from about to post that.

Re:Huh??? (4, Funny)

Max Littlemore (1001285) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324541)

We already have 9.0 here in the office.

That's pretty old now, and was crappy at the time. You really should look at upgrading to OSX. The discussion at hand is about Linux kernels though.

So where does that place OS X? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324379)

I am genuinely curious.

Re:So where does that place OS X? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324507)

Look at these changes. Most of them are support and improvements for all sorts of different hardware. Apple supports a tiny specific subset of all the various configurations of hardware in the world. They simply don't have these problems.

I ask because (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324535)

OS X is actually a variant of BSD. That is a little bit of a different animal.

Re:I ask because (1)

chromatic (9471) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324639)

OS X is actually a variant of BSD.

XNU is a variant of BSD?

Re:I ask because (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324667)

XNU is a variant of BSD?

Xenu is a Daemon?!

Somebody better tell the Scientologists.

Re:So where does that place OS X? (1)

GaryPatterson (852699) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324529)

As completely unrelated?

Can you be more specific in the question?

ACPI (4, Insightful)

Detritus (11846) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324401)

Any chance that this will fix some of the ACPI problems with Linux? I recently had a terrible time trying to install Linux on a new Intel motherboard, mostly related to ACPI problems. I'm not blaming any of the Linux developers for this mess. I get the impression that ACPI is a disaster area and even Intel is unable to get it right on their own boards.

Re:ACPI (1)

terranwannabe (533181) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324483)

I just build a new Vista x64 SP1 build on an Intel P45 chipset, enabled ACPI and it works beautifully. Just sayin', is all...

Re:ACPI (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25324539)

> Any chance that this will fix some of the ACPI problems with Linux?

Just to be clear, ACPI problems are motherboard problems, not Linux problems.

If the ACPI function of your motherboard is correct and compliant with the ACPI specification, Linux will work just fine.

Part of the motherboard ACPI problem is that Windows expects, and uses, some functions within ACPI that are not compliant with the ACPI specification ... you know the drill: embrace, extend, obscure, try to screw the opposition ...

Fortunately with ACPI we have not quite yet got to the "extinguish" phase.

Anyone know what's up with AR5007? (2, Interesting)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324489)

I was kinda expecting to see news about ath9k and AR5007 found in some HP notebooks, among others. Currently using a very flaky ath_pci module.

Re:Anyone know what's up with AR5007? (1)

zombie_monkey (1036404) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324707)

ath9k has nothing to do with AR5007. AR5007 is only supported by the development version of madwifi, so I've been using ndiswrapper. My laptop has a ar5bxb63 which is a kind of ar5007. When I bought it a year ago new HAL for madwifi was expected. The HAL was released last month, but before it could be integrated in the 0.9.5 version which was to support ar5007, Atheros open sourced a slightly different version of the HAL; it seems that active development of madwifi will be abandoned now and they will use the open HAL as a reference for ath5k which will one day support ar5007; that's _very_ far off, though; now there are many unintegrated improvements in the development version of madwifi , including ar5007 support, and it looks like an intermediate 9.4.1 will be released which I guess will finally support ar5007.

Re:Anyone know what's up with AR5007? (1)

zombie_monkey (1036404) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324721)

By the way, the same time last year ar5007 was not yet supported even by the development version and it was leaked the first eeepc would use the ar5xbx63, and I thought it's strange, were they going to use ndsiwrapper too? Before the eeepc was released an anonymous Atheros emplyee released a binary blob patch for madwifi which supported it.

Yeah, but will it run.... (1)

RyogaHibiki (969138) | more than 5 years ago | (#25324597)

Will it run the HAL9000 series yet?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>