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 Kernel 2.6.30 Released

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the stick-a-fork-in-it-wait-let-me-rephrase dept.

Operating Systems 341

diegocgteleline.es writes "Linux kernel 2.6.30 has been released. The list of new features includes NILFS2 (a new, log-structured filesystem), a filesystem for object-based storage devices called exofs, local caching for NFS, the RDS protocol (which delivers high-performance reliable connections between the servers of a cluster), a new distributed networking filesystem (POHMELFS), automatic flushing of files on renames/truncates in ext3, ext4 and btrfs, preliminary support for the 802.11w drafts, support for the Microblaze architecture, the Tomoyo security MAC, DRM support for the Radeon R6xx/R7xx graphic cards, asynchronous scanning of devices and partitions for faster bootup, the preadv/pwritev syscalls, several new drivers and many other small improvements."

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

uhh-oh, a new filesystem...... (-1, Troll)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278737)

Where'd my wife and the extra seat from my car go?

(Yeah, bad taste.... I'm going directly to hell ;)

Features (-1, Troll)

Thorwak (836943) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278739)

> The list of new features includes NILFS2 Yeah, but does it include MILFS? What, too obvious?

Re:Features (0, Offtopic)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278855)

Hmm, let me see: Nerd I'd Like to Fuck? Nope, doesn't do it for me.

DRM? (3, Informative)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278743)

Why would DRM be listed as a "feature"?

Oh, wrong kind of DRM?

Re:DRM? (4, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278893)

The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) is a component of the Direct Rendering Infrastructure, a system to provide efficient video acceleration (especially 3D rendering) on Unix-like operating systems, e.g. Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.
It consists of two in-kernel drivers (realized as kernel modules on Linux), a generic drm driver, and another which has specific support for the video hardware. This pair of drivers allows a userspace client direct access to the video hardware.

I assume it's this. Either that, or linux now has Direct response marketing in the kernel.

Re:DRM? (4, Informative)

Stoian Ivanov (818158) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278915)

Direct Rendering Managment - this DRM not the bad one

Re:DRM? (3, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279205)

The bad one (not in Linux thankfully) is Dumb Restrictions on Media.

Also stands for Dinasaurs Require Money.

Re:DRM? (2, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279285)

Dinasaurs Require Money

Doesn't Really Matter:
Democrat/Republican Madness
Devours Remaining Milkshake

Re:DRM? (1)

ID000001 (753578) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279457)

I always thought it stands for Dull Remade Movie

Re:DRM? (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279283)

They should rename it to ADRM where A=AMD or ATI

When I saw "DRM" in the list of feature I cringed.

In the world of computing, DRM has the same effect as calling a product/service NAZI in the rest of the world.

DRM? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28278745)

WTF?! Will the F/OSS people stop copying from Windows? Whats next WGA? Activation? :-P

Sad, but true: (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28278753)

Linux is for fags.

Re:Sad, but true: (4, Funny)

Povno (1460131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278785)

Balmer... is that you?

Re:Sad, but true: (3, Funny)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278821)

Eric Allman might well agree.

2.8.x kernel soon? (1, Interesting)

xjlm (1073928) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278809)

I remember when I was running the 2.4.29 kernel in Mandrake 9.0, when it jumped to the 2.6 kernel. Maybe some big improvements are in the wind...

Re:2.8.x kernel soon? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279175)

Do you work in marketing? Who cares what it's called.

Re:2.8.x kernel soon? (1)

eean (177028) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279239)

There are no plans for an unstable branch. Without a 2.7, there will never be a 2.8.

Re:2.8.x kernel soon? (3, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279623)

They should just drop the 2.8. prefix. Linux 30 sounds much cooler than 2.8.30, and man it's got to be light years ahead of Windows 7!

Re:2.8.x kernel soon? (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279625)

didn't they change the numbering versions to where they don't do the specific numbered unstable anymore?

LINUX IS SHIT (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28278811)

Can't even install a usb wifi device without going through a bunch of command line bullshit that doesn't even work

Fuck this shit. Going back to Windows.

Re:LINUX IS SHIT (0, Redundant)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278889)

Fuck this shit. Going back to Windows.

No-one will miss you.

Re:LINUX IS SHIT (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279401)

Try win 7 - 20 minutes install and everything works. Seeks out its own drivers and codecs are included.

Re:LINUX IS SHIT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279011)

Yeah, Linux wireless is broken by design.

FreeBSD got it right. No fucking iwconfig there.

Re:LINUX IS SHIT (0, Flamebait)

Shadow-isoHunt (1014539) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279139)

PEBKAC. Enjoy the similiar headaches of Windows land.

Re:LINUX IS SHIT (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279177)

And the Lunix community wonders why there is such a public relations problem between users and developers... User complains about the experience in Lunix and the difficulty of doing what should be something simple and the response is "RTFM", "PEBKAC", or other various insults.

In Windows, something like this Just Works(tm). Perhaps you should learn something before throwing stones at others. A little humility would go a LONG way.

Re:LINUX IS SHIT (3, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279315)

In Windows, something like this Just Works(tm).

Not always. I had a USB WiFi adapter that I attempted to install on a Windows laptop and after several attempts at uninstalling and reinstalling the driver, I took it back to the store and got a different model. Probably that WiFi adapter just sucked, but still, just because something "Just Works(tm)" for one OS and one piece of hardware doesn't mean that is always the case.

Re:LINUX IS SHIT (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279471)

Exactly. Your not alone in having had problems with wifi adapters in windows.
If it happens in Windows it tends to be the peripheral which gets blamed because windows, allegedly, Just Works(tm). If it happens in Linux/Gnu its the OS which is a POS and toys get thrown out of the pram.

Re:LINUX IS SHIT (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279425)

No. In Windows, USB wireless does NOT Just Work(tm). I have to work voodoo _every_time_ I use my USB wireless dongle on my gaming machine (Windows). Linux wireless does Just Work(tm). And it's so easy and GUIfied, it makes me wonder why a company who makes the hardware can't commission better drivers and GUIs for Windows.

Re:LINUX IS SHIT (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279579)

And this is why Linux will never make any headway on the desktop. Thanks for proving the OP's point.

In related news (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28278815)

Meanwhile back at GNOME H.Q. the developers are still undecided whether to move the "Ok" button on the default help screen 10 pixels to the right. Most think it would be a good idea but a hard core few insist that such a momentous change requires further study as it may confuse new users.

A new version of the dialogue is expected in 2037.

Re:In related news (1, Funny)

zevans (101778) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278875)

+1 Funny (but true)

DRM support? In the kernel? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28278823)

Does this mean that every single person's argument against 'DRM' in the Windows kernel has now been retroactively invalidated? How delicious is that? Think of the cognitive dissonance that will ensue!

(Let me guess, you're going to actually read and research things before you make your scathing replies because you have to defend your point of view instead of running your mouth?)

Re:DRM support? In the kernel? (4, Informative)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278843)

different DRM. this isn't 'rights mgmt' drm.

sometimes, 3 letters can mean different things.

Re:DRM support? In the kernel? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28278911)

different DRM. this isn't 'rights mgmt' drm.

sometimes, 3 letters can mean different things.

So what does it stand for?

Thanks for being critical, but how about being informative?

Re:DRM support? In the kernel? (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278961)

Just look at RMS [wikipedia.org] vs. RMS [wikipedia.org] . (One has to wonder if that was intentional...)

Re:DRM support? In the kernel? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279181)

You forgot RMS [wikipedia.org] .

Re:DRM support? In the kernel? (1)

Knitebane (64590) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279595)

And this RMS. [wikipedia.org]

Re:DRM support? In the kernel? (1)

mizzouxc (985151) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279619)

like WTF.. :)

POHMEL (5, Funny)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278901)

Not sure about the story behind naming POHMELFS what it is, but "pohmel'e" in Russian means "hangover". You can only guess...

Re:POHMEL (1)

hattig (47930) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279033)

I didn't know that elves drank that much! I thought they distanced themselves from the behaviours of dwarves...

And yes, don't these filesystems have catchy user-friendly names, like "Linux Logging Filesystem" and "Linux Object Filesystem" and "Linux Drunken Spew Over Storage Filesystem"?

Re:POHMEL (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279269)

And Evgeniy Polyakov (the POHMELFS dev) sounds like a russian name. I guess he knows.

in soviet russia file systems name hangovers after you

DRM for Trolls (4, Informative)

chill (34294) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278919)

The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM) is a component of the Direct Rendering Infrastructure, a system to provide efficient video acceleration (especially 3D rendering) on Unix-like operating systems, e.g. Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD.

It consists of two in-kernel drivers (realized as kernel modules on Linux), a generic drm driver, and another which has specific support for the video hardware. This pair of drivers allows a userspace client direct access to the video hardware.

From WikiPedia.

Karma Whoring FTW!

So when's KMS going to happen? (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279107)

Does anyone know the status of kernel modesetting for R6/700? As in, being able to run a regular framebuffer console without X. I can't find any mention of anyone working on this.

Re:So when's KMS going to happen? (4, Informative)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279423)

No kernel modelsetting in 2.6.30 for anything but Intel chips.

There is some work in progress [phoronix.com] for ATI chips, but nothing in the mainline kernel.

In the meantime you can use uvesafb in the current kernel to get a framebuffer console if you like it. But you will get a bad vt switching experience.

Intel integrated graphics now work properly (5, Informative)

zevans (101778) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278935)

If you're using 2.7.x Intel xorg drivers you NEED this kernel. Anyone struggling with weird freezes, font corruption, and various other troubles - turns out most of these problems weren't in the Intel drivers at all, but in the GEM and DRI code in the kernel. Mine's been rock solid since RC5 for stability, and RC8 finally fixed the problem with fonts under UXA.

Re:Intel integrated graphics now work properly (1)

stinerman (812158) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279171)

I could never get XvMC working on anything, but using kernel modesetting/DRI2 crashed X every time I tried to play a video in Mplayer. I hope this will fix both issues.

Thottle Capability (5, Interesting)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 5 years ago | (#28278997)

Still no support for SLA\95% throttling of processing power allocated to VMs.

Case in Point:

VM 1 : 80% Of processor utilization
VM 2 : 20% of processor utilization
          : Can borrow up to 20% of VM1's allocation
          : if unused.

The scheduler does great things don't get me wrong but when it comes to provisioning systems for various clients some want a garuntee on the level of processing power that is available at any time. This is true in test systems as well where yout Integration, Acceptance, and Performance virtual environments may share Bare Iron with some production VMs.

Now this is old hat easy with mainframes (MIP allocation\weights between LPARS\SYSPLEX) but with more and more focus on VMs and hosted VMs SLAs on processing power is becoming more of an issue.

Nice values are not enough when writing contracts... Great work Linux team but could we get some more granular control over VM provisioning with SLAs in mind? Yeah we can build user space systems to help manage VMs but kernel level provisioning and auditing is something we need with KVM. Gotta have the reports to show the customer you are meeting the agreeded upon SLAs.

And for my own personal use, I'd love to be able to throttle a dos 6.22 VM to 486 speeds so some of those ancient programs can be ran for historical purposes. (Without bombing the processor with dummy NOP and other MOSLO crap so we keep our power consumption down.)

Just some musings as Linux rolls along...

Nice, But... (3, Insightful)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279053)

If you want a mainframe, maybe calling IBM and ordering one is a better way to go?

Re:Nice, But... (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279223)

Or he could buy commodity hardware and install a VM.

Re:Nice, But... (1)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279459)

That is the problem, no way to throttle the VMs on commodity hardware, thus the whole point of the post.

Re:Nice, But... (2, Insightful)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279567)

I know :-) I both strengthened your point and explained the issue to maz2331, who seems to have missed the point entirely.

Why another filesystem?! (3, Interesting)

Psiren (6145) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279015)

Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems? Windows has had NTFS for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across), and Linux has, what, 73 or something?! Is it really that hard to get it right?

Re:Why another filesystem?! (5, Informative)

fbjon (692006) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279069)

This is something quite different and exciting: a log-structured file system, for storing your files on dead trees.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (4, Funny)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279327)

Uh... you just got modded as informative. Genius.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (4, Insightful)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279089)

Can anyone explain to me why Linux has so many filesystems?

Because one filesystem isn't optimal for all cases? Because people want to experiment with new things? Why does it matter?

Windows has had NTFS for years (admittedly, several versions, but never any compatibility issues that I've come across), and Linux has, what, 73 or something?! Is it really that hard to get it right?

And Windows has had FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, exFAT, VFAT, FFS2, DFS, EFS. Was it really that hard to get it right?

Re:Why another filesystem?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279353)

Don't forget HPFS. I think they finally took it out, but it was in there for quite a few releases. Best FS windows ever had.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (5, Funny)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279497)

You forgot High Sierra, ISO9660, UDF.

And WinFS. Oh, wait...

Re:Why another filesystem?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279499)

You forgot Vista's famous WinFS. Oh yeah.. that was dropped because they couldn't finish it in time.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (2, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279585)

Because one filesystem isn't optimal for all cases?

Exactly. You wouldn't use a journaling filesystem (ext3, JFS, XFS) on an SD card. In networked environments, some filesystems are optimized for general use (CIFS, NFS) while others are optimized for a clustered environment (GFS, VMFS), while others are optmized for a distributed environment (Andrew Filesystem, CODA Filesystem). Log-structured filesystems are a new technology that maximizes write throughput, something that is key to optimizing speed in write-heavy environments: this is as opposed to conventional filesystems which are optimized for randomly reading and writing files in-place.

You wouldn't necessarily want a log-structured filesystem in a database environment, for example, because the performance hit from incurring more seeks that are necessarily a part of a log-structured filesystem would be prohibitive for queries.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279621)

Because one filesystem isn't optimal for all cases?

The thing is, Linux strives so hard for the "optimum" that, while doing so, they end up in mediocrity. That's because its programmers are so concerned with micro-optimizations and top speed that they lack the ability to design properly and make good abstractions.

Would it really be that hard to have ONE good fs that you could tune to different use cases? Probably not. But the average Linux coder sees that something isn't fast in case X and goes ahead redoing the entire wheel. And why? Because the thing he just looked at wasn't designed very well either and can't be adapted easily to different use scenarios. And why? Because it was done by a half-assed coder like himself. And so the circle closes.

Linux needs more people that can properly design software and make good abstractions - instead of narrow-minded code monkeys that can't see beyond their own crap that they are willing to completely rewrite in two revisions anyway because they lost the big picture.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279093)

Because filesystems are not condoms (one size fits all).

Re:Why another filesystem?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279227)

Hate to be the one to tell you, but one size condom definitely does not fit all.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279563)

Sorry, lady, but no matter what your husband says, one size condom does NOT fit all.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (5, Funny)

tick-tock-atona (1145909) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279099)

Can anyone explain to me why Windows has so many viruses? Linux has had no viruses for years (admittedly, several attempts, but never any in the wild that I've come across), and Windows has, what, 73 billion or something?! Is it really that hard to get it right?

Re:Why another filesystem?! (1)

park3r (833325) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279369)

Funny, but you're not comparing similar things.

Though I do find it interesting that by simplifying things to make it easier on the average user (such as which type of filesystem to use) and subsequently gaining popularity, it has made itself a larger payoff for viruses. Just like the infected copies of Photoshop CS4 and iWork on torrent sites that are only really cropping up now that Apple is gaining serious popularity. Though it's less likely to get a virus from a trusted software repository, wild viruses could eventually happen to Linux too.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (0, Troll)

xenolion (1371363) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279523)

Please tell me these question are a joke right?? Cause if you have to ask them please turn off your computer, get up from the desk cause you have to be very drunk right now and its not safe for drunk and type.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (0)

Nadir (805) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279127)

Most of these are experimenting in new directions. And ext4 is backwards compatibile with ext3 which is backwards compatible with ext2 (the reverse is not true: i.e. you can't mount an ext4 filesystem with ext3).

Re:Why another filesystem?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279185)

Partly because they can, partly because it allows Linux to read and write filesystems used by other operating systems.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279211)

NTFS first off isn't right. Never has been.

Linux has quite a few file systems. File systems that are quick and light. Ones that are built for Moving huge chunks of data. Ones that are adept at handling Massive databases and millions of requests. Linux has a few that are done right. Right for what you need it to do. Not what one person decides you should do. That is the beauty of Linux.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279237)

POHMELFS is a filesystem that can do what a lot of people have been wanting to do for a while: Use that extra 100GB (or TB/PB for our future readers) that no one ever uses on their workstations as redundant distributed network storage, or the same for clusters instead of buying dedicated storage machines. Of course, this requires Linux with kernel 2.6.30 running on all those workstations.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279245)

Maybe the "Is it really that hard to get it right?" part gave parent the answers he/she deserved, but I am honestly curious about why there are so many file systems? Not criticizing - just wondering.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (1)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279335)

Because one filesystem doesn't meet the needs of every user? Secondly, Linux isn't the only OS with multiple file systems. In a previous post I outlined 9 different filesystems just from Microsoft for Windows.

NILFS2 is better than MILFS2 (5, Funny)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279409)

NILFS2 is the successor to MILFS2, which was based on the "Mother" specification.

NILFS2 is based on the "Nanny" specification, which means it is younger, firmer, *and* keeps the child nodes quiet when you are not actively updating its data.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (2, Informative)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279467)

It's the combination of a bit of NIH plus the freedom that Linux brings to a programmer. If you know enough C to not break things horribly and can operate Google, you can create a filesystem. There are also hundreds of proprietary filesystems from older hardware running other OSes, and Linux supports a number of those thanks to users of those older systems developing drivers for them.

I'd bet that the vast majority of filesystems supported by Linux are rarely if ever used, and when used they're operated in read-only mode to retrieve data from old disks.

There are still a number, probably in the low teens, of filesystems in active use on modern Linux systems. Those are typically chosen either for compatibility with other platforms (FAT and it's derivatives for example, no one sane would choose to use that when other options are available, but it's just so compatible that often other options don't exist) or for specific job requirements (at one point I ran XFS on my file server because it supported growing the FS while mounted and seemed to be the best choice at the time for a box primarily handling large files). So I guess after all that, yes, it is that hard to get it right because the definition of right varies. Some jobs might want a filesystem to just be incredibly fast with a certain type of data and possibly rely on a nice RAID controller for reliability and caching, others might want the filesystem to handle everything and allow the controller to be dumb. SSDs bring an entirely different set of needs to the table and a filesystem that was laid out to be fast on disk might have serious problems on some SSDs.

Re:Why another filesystem?! (0, Troll)

SpooForBrains (771537) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279639)

plus, lets be honest, NTFS is crap. The only reason they're still using it is because there is too much involved in transitioning to a new one. The absense of WinFS from 7 is a testament to this.

Trusted Computing Slithered In? (5, Interesting)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279029)

Integrity Management Architecture

Contributor: IBM

Recommended LWN article: http://lwn.net/Articles/227937/ [lwn.net]

The Trusted Computing Group(TCG) runtime Integrity Measurement Architecture(IMA) maintains a list of hash values of executables and other sensitive system files, as they are read or executed. If an attacker manages to change the contents of an important system file being measured, we can tell. If your system has a TPM chip, then IMA also maintains an aggregate integrity value over this list inside the TPM hardware, so that the TPM can prove to a third party whether or not critical system files have been modified.

From the recommended article, the key dilemma:

There are clear advantages to a structure like this. A Linux-based teller machine, say, or a voting machine could ensure that it has not been compromised and prove its integrity to the network. Administrators in charge of web servers can use the integrity code in similar ways. In general, integrity management can be a powerful tool for people who want to be sure that the systems they own (or manage) have not be reconfigured into spam servers when they weren't looking.

The other side of this coin is that integrity management can be a powerful tool for those who wish to maintain control over systems they do not own. Should it be merged, the kernel will come with the tools needed to create a locked-down system out of the box. As these modules get closer to mainline confusion, we may begin to see more people getting worried about them. Quite a few kernel developers may oppose license terms intended to prevent "tivoization," but that doesn't mean they want to actively support that sort of use of their software. Certainly it would be harder to argue against the shipping of locked-down, Linux-based gadgets when the kernel, itself, provides the lockdown tools.

OK, maybe this is overdramatic, but trading freedom from third-party oversight through trusted computing for the security of first-party oversight through trusted computing seems a little like:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

But I can see both sides. Pondering... what are your thoughts?

Re:Trusted Computing Slithered In? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279633)

Many problems that seem to have been created by technology (DRM, spam, net neutrality, violence in games etc.) are not the fault of technology. They're the fault of the way people use that technology. So the solution will also have to come from the people and how they use the tech.

Refusing the tech altogether because there are certain evil ways of using it is not the answer.

An analogy: there are valid use cases for using BitTorrent, and there are valid use cases for putting DRM in the Linux kernel. If you want DRM thrown out altogether from the kernel because some companies use it to peddle crippled files, it probably means it's ok to outlaw BitTorrent altogether too, because some people use it to do illegal stuff. Right?

Wrong. Leave the technology alone. The problems are in the people's heads.

Re:Trusted Computing Slithered In? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279637)

some hardware needs to be 'trusted', most does not

the economics of it will sort it out, never mind

ehem... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279035)

Can I run MS Office? Can I have a webcam conversation? Can I play games?

End of discussion.

Re:ehem... (1)

harryandthehenderson (1559721) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279125)

And those are responsibilities of the kernel, how?

Re:ehem... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279179)

Yes, yes and yes.

Next please.

Re:ehem... (1)

zevans (101778) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279191)

You can run OpenOffice, and I pass files back and forth between that and MS Office all day, no problem. I might add that I seem to have to restart the latter rather more than the former.

I have also had several webcam conversations on this very machine here.

And you can play Windows games under Linux, never mind the Linux games.

What's your point?

Re:ehem... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279201)

Yes, yes, and yes retard!

Re:ehem... (1)

ta bu shi da yu (687699) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279265)

Can I run MS Office?

Yes.

Can I have a webcam conversation?

Yes.

Can I play games?

Yes.

Yes to NFS local caching! (2)

GnuPooh (696143) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279045)

I found the kernel thread where the original author of the FS-Cache patches, David Howell, makes it clear that on a quiet network with a quite fast server metadata will take longer from the cache. However, at my work we have very busy large NFS servers connected over the building network which is very busy. When you try to read a large file repeatedly in the middle of the day the traditional NFS caching just doesn't work if the time between reads is more than about 5 minutes. I've resorted to manually copying my datasets to /usr/tmp on the local disk and seen huge performance improvements. (this has other serious issues, like getting confused about which copy you just modified and migrating any changes back to the official NFS copy.) I know this feature makes sense for me and others in similar environments. The problem of course is: (1) it will be years before it makes it into RHEL and (2) it won't be turned on by default, (3) my system admins are weary to trying anything kernel-related that's not stock RHEL. However, if I can show them an order of magnitude improvement in speed, which I think this will do, they might think twice.

Re:Yes to NFS local caching! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279129)

RHEL5 already has FS-Cache included. Check your kernel messages next time you mount a NFS filesystem.

Re:Yes to NFS local caching! (2, Interesting)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279155)

Have you looked at pnfs for performance reasons? We use it with upwards of 300TB of spinning media and 17PB of tape, and it works like a champ.

Yes, but does it run Lin... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279087)

oh wait nevermind

Some Great Work...But "rt2500 Realtek Drivers" (3, Informative)

mrpacmanjel (38218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279101)

Have wireless "issues" been fixed with this release.

I have a laptop with generic realtek rt2500 wifi hardware.
For many kernel releases I have to compile seperate drivers (Legacy serialmonkey) because the "stock" drivers are woefully unstable.
I either lose my connection, painfully slow( have tried the "rate 54" fix) or I cannot reconnect to my network at all.

I don't mind compiling seperate drivers (a huge benefit of open source stuff & Linux) but I am concerned how long I will be able to do this (E.g. something changes in the kernel makes the "external" driver break - in fact actual development of the legacy drivers has ceased - http://rt2x00.serialmonkey.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page [serialmonkey.com] )?

I know I should not be moaning about this but this issue has been around for ages and seems to affect a lot of hardware.

This is my only niggle with Linux and I am grateful for everything. Computing become much more interesting and fun again.

Huge thanks to Linus and the kernel developers.

Re:Some Great Work...But "rt2500 Realtek Drivers" (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279357)

Can't remember when I last had dealings with this. I have used ralink devices though....

Looking at the rt2x00, kernels from 2.6.24 onwards should have the rt2x00 driver right there in the kernel, so it should Just Work(TM). You shouldn't need to build the older, legacy drivers any more.

I agree though, it's a pain making sure to rebuild the driver modules every time you have a kernel update. I've had to do it with the atheros chipset in my laptop. Hopefully, as these device drivers become official, we get to stop doing that.

Re:Some Great Work...But "rt2500 Realtek Drivers" (1)

Bigby (659157) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279593)

I don't have any issues with rt2500 in 2.6.28. However, I do have issues with ath9k and also issues with using smbfs and autofs, like my card is half duplex.

I like it (1)

dburkland (1526971) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279135)

local NFS caching along with ext4 improvements make this a pretty nice update imo. I will have to compile it later tonight on my Arch Laptop

Ralink Driver Clarification (5, Informative)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279247)

When they say "Support for rt3070 driver for recent RaLink Wi-Fi chipsets", they really mean support for RT2870, RT2770, RT307X, RT3572 chipsets (they're all the same, with just features enabled or disabled, or signal strength improved between them).

This was the one last thing for me to fully switch over to linux. Netgear and alot of other Wireless-N USB adapters use these chipsets, and they are the best around.

Previously, the method of installing this driver was the largest pain in the ass I've ever had to go through as a linux noob (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=960642) and I'm so very very glad to see that this chipset is now supported.

The reason it was so hard is that the normal controlling app for the USB device has many advanced features you normally don't see on a wireless adapter (act as a router, full cisco network compatibility, etc etc).

Re:Ralink Driver Clarification (1)

x78 (1099371) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279519)

They patched the rt2870 to work for the Edimax EW7710Un, now I can finally stop patching it myself!

POHMELFS (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279383)

Epecially I like this feature, which if you read it in Russian would mean in English "file system created after a good party night" - or "hangover fs" ;-)

ati (1)

n30na (1525807) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279441)

So, wait, does this mean that more ati cards get proper 3d acceleration? Or is that still ati's fault, like I thought?

Auto flushing (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#28279495)

automatic flushing of files on renames/truncates in ext3, ext4 and btrfs/quote?

I assume this means fighting over following the minimum in the POSIX spec has been ended by Linus weighing in on what he felt was proper (no disappearing of files that existed at boot time).

This makes sense, as Linus is on the whole for more caching than the spec allows for (for performance), but also for integrity. This should allow for caching and integrity.

For evidence that Linus wants to allow for more caching (less syncing), and does not feel strict spec compliance is important, see his discussions about atime.

I am glad that someone from on high has settled this.

Ralink 2860 Drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28279603)

Just purchased an Asus 1000HE which unfortunately came with Ralink :(

Can anyone tell me if this will help get the Ralink 2860 drivers fixed, so that I can use injection in this otherwise neat little piece of hardware?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?