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 2.6.35 Released

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the everything-new-is-new-again dept.

Announcements 159

eldavojohn writes "Linus has announced the release of 2.6.35 for people to download and test after he found not a lot of changes between this week and last. The big features to look out for include: 'Transparent spreading of incoming network traffic load across CPUs, Btrfs improvements, KDB kernel debugger frontend, Memory compaction and Support for multiple multicast route tables' as well as various performance and graphics improvements. Linus also praised the community saying that 'regression changes only' after rc1 improved this time around and gave numbers to back it up saying 'in the 2.6.34 release, there were 3800 commits after -rc1, but in the current 35 release cycle we had less than 2000.' Good to see the process is becoming more refined and controlled after the first release candidate — hopefully there's no impending burnout."

cancel ×

159 comments

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

3.6.35? (4, Funny)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106420)

Wow. The future has arrived.

Way to double-check your article, Timothy.

Re:3.6.35? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33106458)

Yeah, I thought I was *really* behind the curve when I read that.

Re:3.6.35? (1)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106644)

It's a plot to beat SCO's Linus 2.7 lawsuit claims.

Re:3.6.35? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33106518)


Wow. The future has arrived.

Way to double-check your article, Timothy.

Pick a language and dive right in. If you are proficient in as many languages as you state, then learning "modern" languages will be no problem. Especially if you are familiar with Pascal, which structurally is very similar to the languages you want to learn.

C++, PHP, Java, C# and Javascript are all related structured programming languages, and primarily differ in minor syntax, class definition, data types and strictness.
For example, the C code:
if (++i > 10) {
    j+=5;
    i=0;
}
will execute as-is in all 5 of the languages I mentioned (PHP would have $ signs in front of variable names). So if you are familiar with C, or even Pascal, then you already understand a good portion of modern languages.

"HTML5" - HTML, CSS and Javascript (and throw in PHP for server-side), would represent the largest departure from what you have done in the past, due to the tremendous amount of segregation between what runs on the server versus what happens in the browser. To some extent the entire thing will seem like a big hack, and to a large extent that's what it is.

Still, my point is that if you were able to become proficient over such a wide variety of languages in the past, then you will not have any problem today, especially since many of the modern languages are quite similar.

Re:3.6.35? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33106580)

Commit suicide.

Re:3.6.35? (2, Informative)

smi.james.th (1706780) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106598)

I suspect you may have posted this reply on the wrong thread, mate.

Re:3.6.35? (2)

belthize (990217) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106604)

This is not the thread you're looking for.

Re:3.6.35? (0, Offtopic)

Lucky75 (1265142) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106676)

I believe you forgot to wave your hand before your post. *Waves hand* "This is not the droid...err...thread you're looking for" Sorry, couldn't resist ;)

Re:3.6.35? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33106988)

Choke and joke if you like, but I *JUST* finished building 2.6.35-rc6-git6. Just. I have a whole bunch of modules and with a quad core hyperthreaded cpu (CoreI7-920) it still takes about 35 minutes to build a kernel. Damn!

2.6.35 has not been released (0)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106460)

It says so, with big Caution images all over the linked page.

Re:2.6.35 has not been released (4, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106506)

Linus sez

So 2.6.35 is out, go check
it out.

in the other TFA so I suppose it is out.

Re:2.6.35 has not been released (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33106642)

fucking hippy linux niggers

Re:2.6.35 has not been released (2, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106702)

It's 3.6.35 that's not released yet.

Still no ZFS. (5, Funny)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106482)

I understand why, but there are a ton of people out there that think OSS is OSS. You wonder why corporations are weary of OSS it's because of this. I really hope this project [github.com] goes somewhere or Debian's kFreeBSD [debian.org] project works as well as I'm hoping.

Reminds me of this joke:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a software developer standing on the edge, about to jump off. I immediately ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Well ... do you develop Closed Source or Open?"

"Open."

"Me too! Are you BSD or GPL?"

"GPL."

"Me too! Are you GPL v2 or GPL v3?"

"GPL v3!"

To which I said, "Die, heretic scum!" and pushed him off.

Re:Still no ZFS. (3, Interesting)

tenchikaibyaku (1847212) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106554)

A ton of people out there who both think that all the Free Software/Open Source licenses are the same and are waiting impatiently for ZFS in Linux? Somehow I doubt it. And corporations are weary of OSS because the Linux developers aren't breaking Sun's(/Oracle's) purposefully GPL-incompatible license? Actually, did you have a point? I think I missed it. :-)

Re:Still no ZFS. (1)

smi.james.th (1706780) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106626)

Isn't Btrfs supposed to be similar to ZFS in its features and stuff?

Re:Still no ZFS. (3, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106690)

I'm increasingly wary of BtrFS, due to claims that there are fundamental design flaws. This does not mean I believe such claims (although I observe LWN's top file-system contributing journalist is quitting her job, her entire career path and her State) but it does mean that I want to see someone do a proper systematic analysis of the methods used and algorithms chosen. I'll probably use it anyway. Radical filesystem architecturing is hard and better options are almost always likely to exist - the question I have is how much impact this actually has on performance and safety of BtrFS. A little? A lot? About average for filesystems?

Re:Still no ZFS. (5, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107368)

You should only compare to what is already existing and mainstream, rather than what the theoretically best option is.

If its reliable in general use, and better than existing alternatives, its a winner in my books.

Re:Still no ZFS. (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108400)

Since I don't have the mod point, and parent is still only at 1, I have to say - the parent post requires some insightful mods. More rational point than I'm used to seeing in a lot of cases.

Re:Still no ZFS. (4, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107638)

I'm increasingly wary of BtrFS, due to claims that there are fundamental design flaws.

The only 'claims of fundamental design flaws' I'm aware of are that it has bad performance in some pathological cases. Which is true of every single filesystem ever produced and likely true of every filesystem you'll ever use in the future.

I'm certainly not aware of it having any flaws that ZFS doesn't; my main concern is that Oracle won't want to fund any more BTRFS development now they also own ZFS.

Re:Still no ZFS. (3, Informative)

joib (70841) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108062)

Presumably he meant the issue described here: http://lwn.net/Articles/393144/ [lwn.net]

From reading the mailing list thread, my impression was that it was a storm in a teacup, and the real problem was just a simple bug rather than a fundamental misdesign. Or if you want to be slightly less charitable, a case of "concern trolling".

Re:Still no ZFS. (1)

realityimpaired (1668397) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108414)

As with *any* experimental subsystem in the kernel, use at your own risk. If you really need the features afforded by btrfs over ext4 or reiserfs at this point in the game, then do what I do: use LVM. Reiser over a disk-spanning LVM gives you most of the advantages that btrfs has over ext4, without having the hassle of being experimental. I still plan on switching to btrfs once it's out of experimental, but for now I'm able to do everything that has me wanting btrfs for my fileserver with those two.

Yes, it does lack some of the promised functionality of btrfs. But it does give me the ability to add/remove disks to/from the array, it lets me resize the array without losing data, and it lets me pool multiple disks into a single disk, allowing me to share large amounts of space between multiple network drives without worrying about whether I allocated enough space to each of the 3 drives. When coupled with mdm, you also get to take advantage of striping/mirroring between drives, giving added reliability. This setup also has the added advantage that, when I switch to a different distro or have to reinstall, recovering my array is as simple as installing the lvm2 tools and running "pvchange -a y". There aren't a lot of distros that natively support btrfs at this time, and many of those that do have different implementations of the tools that may not be compatible. Thus it still being experimental.

If you don't need a disk exceeding 2TB then do it with a single disk with the filesystem of your choice. If you do need a disk that exceeds 2TB, then the tools have been available for some time which will allow you to do so. btrfs is simply a pooling of those tools into a single package, in a way that makes it more accessible for dummy users.

Re:Still no ZFS. (3, Informative)

afabbro (33948) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106570)

The original joke:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and i saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. so I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" He said, "Baptist Church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

Re:Still no ZFS. (4, Informative)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106608)

Courtesy of the inimitable Emo Philips [guardian.co.uk] .

Re:Still no ZFS. (0, Offtopic)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106712)

"Christian or Buddhist"? Kind of sounds like an odd dichotomy...

Re:Still no ZFS. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33106888)

"Christian or Buddhist"? Kind of sounds like an odd dichotomy...

yo mama is an odd dichotomy

Re:Still no ZFS. (4, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106662)

I understand why, but there are a ton of people out there that think OSS is OSS. You wonder why corporations are weary of OSS it's because of this.

I would wonder if they were, but they're clearly not. Corporations love Linux. It's less expensive and commodity. It frees them from expensive proprietary hardware vendors (Sun Sparc, HP Itanium, etc.) and lets them find the right x86/x86-64 servers for them. They can use free versions (e.g., CentOS) in some environments and paid enterprise versions (e.g., RHEL) in others. Most of the big enterprise packages (Oracle, DB/2, Websphere, JBoss, SAP, etc.) are available in Linux. The enterprise data center is a war between Linux and Windows (with the mainframe, AS/400, and other monotowers, though they are rarely growing).

The "SCO scare" is a thing of the past. I can tell you from personal experience after many years in the infrastructure world that the license headaches with Linux distros are nothing compared to the eternal headaches that I've had with companies like Veritas/Symantec, Oracle, etc.

Most of the decision-makers, technical architects, etc. in corporations do not operate at the "why ZFS is better" level. Does $LINUX_DISTRO support RAID, SAN multipath, and other common enterprise storage needs? Great. That's all we need. Frankly, while ZFS is great, it's not enough of a game changer to make someone buy Solaris over Linux.

Re:Still no ZFS. (2, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106698)

It got me to switch. And every single person that I've talked to about it has.

I'm not talking about the companies that just USE Linux internally. I'm talking about the companies that sell something linux.

Tivo for example (The reason for GPLv3) there are companies that may want to pick up and run with something Linux based but are afraid about what might happen if they build a product around it. So they scrap the whole idea.

Vs a BSD license that Apple's created OS X around, companies have built specialty FreeBSD distros for their high end routers, the company that took over FreeNAS uses it as the basis of their OS for the hardware they sell.

Re:Still no ZFS. (2, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106816)

For a kiosk turnkey product, an extensible OS that can work for the server or desktop is probably not that useful. You're never going to want to run commodity software on it, you're never going to want to extend it, and you're never going to want to make use of the flexibility it has.

Rather, you'd be much more interested in a real-time OS that is compact (so that most of the memory can be used for double-buffering the video and buffering the network traffic and disk activity) and supports only the absolute key features you must have. In the end, it is cheaper to develop a few minor features for an OS kernel than to test a horribly large number of pathways, and for something like TiVo, users aren't going to care about the 99.999% of the time it works great, they're going to remember and whine about the 0.0001% it doesn't.

(I like Linux, I consider it to be one of the best OS' yet developed, and it would be great for a platform that was going to combine the elements of a cable box with a video recorder with a web browser, especially if it was then going to act as a central server for on-demand TV to the rest of the house. It could handle something like that with one bitmask tied behind its back. For something much more basic like decode-store-and-play, FreeRTOS is probably sufficient and the simpler code would make verification much easier.)

Re:Still no ZFS. (5, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106850)

Meanwhile my TV, webcam and Blu-Ray players all appear to run Linux, as did the media players and cameras I used to work on. There are a ton of embedded Linux systems in all kinds of markets even when a real-time OS might make more sense.

Re:Still no ZFS. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33107420)

If the OS is truly a commodity then it usually makes sense to go with the one that is the cheapest to acquire and also to maintain over the lifetime of the product. As both BSD and Linux cost the same to acquire the real question becomes:

Is it better to take advantage of the improvements others make to the OS knowing that any improvements you make have to be given up vs. the advantages of being able to keep your improvements secret knowing that your competitors can keep their improvements secret.

There is no right or wrong in business, just a balance-sheet. Different businesses will have different answers. However, philosophically... do you want to share nice or not?!

Re:Still no ZFS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108056)

companies have built specialty FreeBSD distros for their high end routers

Companies have likewise built speciality Linux distros for their high end routers. Juniper is a fine example.

Re:Still no ZFS. (3, Interesting)

k8to (9046) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108340)

If you switched for ZFS without carefully considering whether it would meaningfully help for your particular use cases, you probably spent a lot of money and effort for no gain.

For most people, ZFS is a cpu-sink that offers slightly more convenient volume management, at a high price for hardware overhead and latency.

But you have to use it on solaris, because their UFS infrastructure is so out of date, you can't support a reasonable number of spindles (without investing even MORE money in moving that problem off the box entirely).

It has some neat whizzy bits, but those whizzy bits are not at all free, and things most people seem to not need.

Re:Still no ZFS. (4, Interesting)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106874)

Don't be so sure of that. FUD is alive and well. Last summer I interviewed with a bank about a three month contract to move some data. When I asked them about the requirements for the platform/environment. I was told, flatly, that I could use anything that I wanted, as long as it wasn't open source. Open source means that anyone can see the flaws in the software and exploit them. I had two choices, I could keep my mouth shut and take the contract or I could speak the truth and blow my chances. I spoke up.

LK

Re:Still no ZFS. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33107066)

I worked a defence contract once where the same policy applied. The argument there is they wanted to have somebody to sue when the planes fell out of the sky.

Welcome... to the REAL world (NEO) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33107250)

I worked a defence contract once where the same policy applied. The argument there is they wanted to have somebody to sue when the planes fell out of the sky. by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 02, @12:55AM (#33107066)

Whether you like it or not? See my subject-line above. That IS how the real world really is and especially in business... and, were YOU in their shoes, would you blame them?? I mean, for example, you probably have a vehicle of somekind. Let's say it has a KNOWN defect that demands recall because it is costing lives. Wouldn't you want some form of remuneration/compensation and care for such an issue?? You certainly would. The same rules apply to the world of software as well. People being people, they definitey do, especially those who do not have the skills to do the work themselves (as in the case of say, cars/vehicles, not everyone is a mechanic... and in the case of softwares & OS' also?? Well, face it: Not everyone is a software engineer or network engineer/techie even, either). So, yes, the person you replied to as well as yourself in both cases?? Guys, it's the real world, and we all know it and also demand the same (as in the case of other products you buy such as cars/vehicles as I noted above (yes, I know - another "Car Analogy", but it does fit here)). People want somekind of "plan B" to fall back on when things matter with tools they use, period. By the way? I am also a professional software engineer/network engineer by trade since 1995 also, and though you or I may not LIKE this scenario, we also may be hypocrites sounding off on it being "wrong" etc., because again, in the case of other products we use, we often demand this ourselves (again, cars serve as an example for many here, or even our computer hardware, if when found faulty? We want remuneration/compensations via warranties, etc./et al).

Re:Welcome... to the REAL world (NEO) (4, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107374)

Were I in their shoes, I would realise that commercial software comes with no more of a warranty than open source. Despite all the money they extract from you, commercial vendors provide you no warranty whatsoever and you have to agree to these terms before they will let you use the software.

You can also buy commercially supported versions of open source, there are a huge number of such products available now.

If you want a system so critical that it flies a plane then you typically write it in house (there aren't that many places that actually build planes). you test it extremely thoroughly (far more so than any commercial vendor does), and then you have multiple redundant backup systems too.

The reality is that many decision makers in business and government simply don't understand very much when it comes to technology, they buy into propaganda that open source is bad but will happily buy things like cisco asa firewalls without realising they run linux.

OpenSores support contracts CO$T Bert (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33107524)

Bert64, see subject line above & I am wondering WHY you avoided noting that (not, I know why you did)! I'll explain it for others to avoid your 1/2 truths here:

By having to purchase a support contract for your open sores software? You're stuff's no longer REALLY "free" and it's actually quite deceptive advertising imo @ least to then say it's free. Also, by your now espousing having to PURCHASE something for your "Open SORES" stuff, well... face it: You're actually subverting a LARGE feature of what actually makes "Open SORES" (where errors are more easily found for both fixes and finding vulnerabilities (in the latter to use AGAINST IT, not just to fix them also)) attractive in being a money saving thing vs. commercially produced closed-source softwares.

No, the sword cuts BOTH ways here Bert64, & though you made a few good points, it was "FUNNY" how you avoided noting those support contracts for "Open SORES" stuff, co$t MONEY!

Re:OpenSores support contracts CO$T Bert (0, Offtopic)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108002)

Support contracts for *ANYTHING* cost money...

I even mentioned that you can buy commercially supported versions of open source software, i suggest you read the post again. Hint: it's the second paragraph.

The difference is that open source gives you the choice, you can get the software free and self support, you can pay for support, you can even pay for the software if you choose, and there are often multiple sources you can buy support from. Proprietary software takes away these choices, you have to pay for the software, in most cases you then have to pay *AGAIN* for support, and only the original supplier has the source code so only they can provide an adequate level of support.

Use of the term "open sores" is laughable, and no better than those who refer to Microsoft as M$.

Also, your use of "you're" makes no sense, did you mean to write "your" instead? As it stands, what you wrote reads as "You are stuff is no longer really free....", print yourself a t-shirt and you can earn a place on engrish.com.

The word "cost" is spelled "c o s t", the "$" symbol is not a letter, it represents a form of currency, or denotes variables in some kinds of programming. And i can see that your "s" key is not broken because you've used the letter "s" in other places.

Over all, a very poor troll. I feel insulted to be trolled by you.

Poor Bert64: Reduced to name tossing (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108024)

LOL, see subject above, & this admission of the TRUTH from "Open SORES zealot #1" around here, in Bert64:

"Support contracts for *ANYTHING* cost money... - by Bert64 (520050) writes: on Monday August 02, @04:39AM (#33108002) Homepage

Funny you mention that NOW, but "StRaNgE" (not) how you avoided noting that in your first reply, eh? Again: "NOT"...

Bert64, but this was what gives away your "FrUsTrAtEd" & "FoAmInG @ tHe MoUtH" rage, lol, in this ad hominem attack by you:

"Over all, a very poor troll. I feel insulted to be trolled by you. - by Bert64 (520050) writes:bert@NosPAM.slashdot.firenzee.com> on Monday August 02, @04:39AM (#33108002) Homepage

Well, I got you to first of all admit that Linux and other "Open SORES" support contracts CO$t MONEY, and now to see you reduced to name tossing so... lol to you.

(Best you & yours had is name tossing and unjustified mod downs as well Bertie boy. Give up: You just do not have the intelligence to get the better of me and your name tossing adhominem attacks prove that much above, in your own words quoted no less!)

Re:Poor Bert64: Reduced to name tossing (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108034)

Go and read the original post.

That doesn't make OPENSORES support FREE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108120)

See subject, & neither does it make the BEER IS FREE BUT $1,000 BOTTLE RENTAL so-called "FREE" of OPEN SORES any better does it Bertie boy? No, it does not. Funny how you omitted that it costs for those support contracts for say, Linux though on your part (& since you have to pay to get Linux supported, it's not exactly "FREE" anymore is it, Bert? Nope, not really!)

Nor does it change the fact that finding security vulnerabilities to exploit in OPEN SORES any better either since it IS possessed of a freely available source which is far easier to find security vulnerabilities in than is closed source (where you must resort to either fuzzers or debuggers/disassemblers, which is far more difficult to do and more time consuming than reading actual sourcecode).

In the end, after your POOR "spell check" trolls and unjustified mod downs here??

LMAO - Man... Give up Bert64, because on your BEST day? I've always taken you to the cleaners in technical debate here, everytime...

APK

P.S.=>

"Go and read the original post." - by Bert64 (520050) writes: on Monday August 02, @04:52AM (#33108034) Homepage

Uhm, that changes what I said above HOW, Bertie? Oh, so you know?? I am posting this from KUbuntu 10.04 (iirc that's the build # of latest stable etc. I dl'd & used) so you can't call me a "closed source shill" etc. as you "Open SORES" trolls & shills often try to do, as well as FireFox (and have my other rig here running Free BSD's latest stable build in a few minutes too)... Plus, of course, my last system on Windows 7 (all 64 bit builds on ALL OS & systems here) - I am OPEN MINDED Bert, but at least I can state the ups & downs of them all, without omitting facts as YOU have in the support contract costs of LINUX! apk

Grammar/Spellcheck best you have, Bert? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108066)

Poor performance on your part to have to try the "grammar and spellcheck" routine Bert64. It's the last resort of a troll and we all know it, unless you can show us that this is the "grammar & spellcheck section" of /. and, it's shown your frustration at being exposed in the oldest scam of all that "Open SORES" uses: Bert64 & Open SORES version of "FREE" is along the lines of BEER IS FREE, BUT THERE IS A $1,000 CHARGE FOR THE BOTTLE DEPOSIT Which is of course, complete bullshit and deceptive advertising. Stating others trolled you also only makes you look all the more frustrated at being outsmarted in being spotted in your rather sneaky omission and 1/2 truth in your not noting that Open SORES support contracts are NOT FREE and CO$T MONEY buddy. You got burned, as well as caught spouting your 1/2 truth "OPEN SORES FUD", and all you have is your name calling and mod downs Bert64. You're not smart enough to pull the wool over our eyes old boy, so face that fact, ok?

OPEN SORES BEER IS FREE, BUT... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108178)

"$1,000++ BOTTLE RENTAL FEE" for support contracts for Open SORES wares & OS, which in essence makes them NOT TOTALLY FREE!

So, so much for "FREE" per Bert64, and gee: Isn't it "ODD" that Bert64 omitted the costs involved on that end of things also?

Bert64 also neglected to mention that Open SORES, in being "Open SORES" that security vulnerabilities are easier to find and thus exploit against an Open SORES OS or ware because of it vs. closed source having to have either fuzzers or debuggers/disassemblers taken to it to do the same which means MORE TIME & harder to do in finding bugs against it also.

(Yes, when you point out truths about "Open SORES" here on /., all you get is more FUD, name tossing, grammar and spellchecks plus other ad hominem attacks taken to you as well as unjustified mod downs sent your way by these numerous alternate registered account using OPEN SORES TROLLS (like they fool anyone? LOL, we all know they do it in fact so they can mod themselves up and others down with their multiple registered accounts here)).

Better luck next time boys because you'll have a hell of a time disproving the points I just made here and also in other posts here as well.

LOL, Insightful? SUPPORT CO$T$ though! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108472)

Funny how Bert64's post gets a "+5 INSIGHTFUL" rating, despite it omitting the fact that support of LINUX actually costs money and he "conveniently" avoided noting that in his supposedly "insightful" posting about OPEN SORES. It's also funny how in the rest of this exchange the AC's posting had their posts also rather "conveniently modded down", despite pointing out how Bert64 err'd in his omission on support contract costs for LINUX as well as the fact that Open SORES code is exactly that: OPEN, where the "security vulnerability sores" in it can be spotted in it, TO USE SAID FOUND SECURITY VULNERABILITIES IN IT AGAINST SAID OPEN SORES OS &/OR OPEN SORES APPS, & far easier than they are in closed source code (because closed source is that, closed, and needs disassemblers/debuggers &/or fuzzers taken to it to do the same in finding vulnerabilities in it to use against closed source stuff).

Re:LOL, Insightful? SUPPORT CO$T$ though! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108650)

Maybe the moderation is a hint that everyone else thinks you're stupid?

Re:Welcome... to the REAL world (NEO) (3, Informative)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107656)

I am also a professional software engineer/network engineer by trade since 1995

A young whippersnapper, then. When you have a bit more experience of the real world you might start to understand just how many critical systems already run on Linux.

BTW, I can make a safe bet that anyone writing avionics software is not running it on Windows either. Back when I was writing avionics software it all ran on custom hardware with no OS worth speaking of; and having a 'free' OS wasn't much of a benefit when our hardware was selling for the price of an expensive sports car.

Troll, give us a break, ok? Thanks! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33107996)

"A young whippersnapper, then. When you have a bit more experience of the real world you might start to understand just how many critical systems already run on Linux." - by 0123456 (636235) on Monday August 02, @03:06AM (#33107656)

LMAO - Oh, really? You'd be surprised at how many MORE run on say, Microsoft's Windows NT-based OS' as well as those from the likes of IBM for instance... & as to "young whippersnapper"?? LMAO, again, because I've actually been around these systems for over 28++ yrs. now, & for nearly 16 professionally as both a dev using multiple languages, tools, & OS' + as a network administrator as well (in addition to having done quite well in publication & technical contests for my works in commercial wares, such as MS' Tech Ed, 2yrs. in a row no less & in its hardest category). I also possess multiple degrees around this science... have you done the same to ALL of the above? Somehow, despite your attempted ad hominem attack upon myself, rather than disputing points I made (which is the last resort of trolls on both accounts mind you on your part), and attempting to act as if YOU were my "senior" in this art & science? I doubt it. As to wares written for defence contractors? Check with Raytheon and their artillery control wares written for the IRAQ conflict, because the poster I replied to mentioned working for defense contractors. Soldiers lives depend on it, and yes, it works, and it's written on the Windows platform, so... Better luck next time, troll.

Re:Still no ZFS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108378)

They don't have someone to sue in either case. Don't they read the contracts and licenses?

Re:Still no ZFS. (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108932)

Isn't that red hat's job?

Re:Still no ZFS. (2, Insightful)

RMS Eats Toejam (1693864) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107454)

I had two choices, I could keep my mouth shut and take the contract or I could speak the truth and blow my chances. I spoke up.

Sure, you could have used the money, but being able to brag about your sense of morality later on Slashdot makes up for it. A little sad in the long run though.

Re:Still no ZFS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33107774)

Do they use Microsoft ? Otherwise most common programming language are open source (java, ruby, groovy, python, etc...) or rely on open source libraries.

Re:Still no ZFS. (2, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108910)

Its true though, we're a full-on microsoft shop and even though we use some poor products that are shown to be failing us, when I migrated some things to OSS (Visual source safe to Subversion comes immediately to mind), my bosses all insisted we evaluate all the commercial offerings first. They equate 'free' to 'crap'.

As it is, even though we migrated successfully and used it for nearly 2 years, they still went and bought the worst (IMHO) SCM I've ever had the misfortune to use (Serena Dimensions). It cost us well over £100k and we're considering moving back to SVN as soon as we can.

The problem is one of attitude and 'marketing'. Even though they were slapped in the face, then built themselves a wall and quickly walked right into it, they *still* think 'free' equals 'crap'. I don't think this is too unusual amongst the majority of business managers either.

We know better, these poor dears don't.

Re:Still no ZFS. (3, Informative)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106974)

Eh. Sun intentionally chose the license to be GPL incompatible.

And it's quite likely that their explicit intention was to be Linux incompatible as well. Should it have been licensed under some other terms, the license for ZFS would likely have been chosen to be incompatible with that. For instance, if Linux was BSD licensed, Sun could have just released ZFS under the GPL. While in theory it's perfectly compatible, in practice a BSD project will refuse GPL patches.

Which really makes sense, as Linux has been replacing Solaris in lots of places, and I imagine Sun didn't want to help them with that.

Sun and GPL (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108808)

Eh. Sun intentionally chose the license to be GPL incompatible.

This keeps being said. Do you have a source for this?

Re:Sun and GPL (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108936)

No source needed for that any more than for water being wet. Now go troll somewhere else, you sad loser.

Re:Still no ZFS. (3, Interesting)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107484)

You mention the zfs github and kFreeBSD, but are you aware of Nexenta?

Honestly, I'm not sure why it's not as well acknowledged as kFreeBSD. The myopia involved there seems to be similar to what you make light of with your joke.

In the event that you really haven't heard of it, Nexenta is basically OpenSolaris kernel with Ubuntu userland.

You get apt. No, it's not debian, but if we're looking at ZFS implementations, it's a far cry better than the alternatives (FreeBSD = buggy crap and you've got to use ports; OpenSolaris = you've got to use Solaris/shoehorn useable modern tools in).

I'm not sure why we need to stick with Linux, per se, and what's wrong with OpenSolaris kernel/CDDL. Serious question here: is there something wrong I'm missing?

From where I'm sitting - user and admin of Linux for close to a decade, now - there's really not much of an advantage to using (or developing for) Linux over, say, FreeBSD other than the community of developers (including the install base, financial backing, etc.) and what that provides for you. I'm not sure if a BSD compatible license could ever get the financial support (from the likes of RedHat, IBM, Intel, etc.) Linux does because it could be 'turned against them', but for most people (administrators, developers, etc.) there's no inherent reason, one way or the other.

It just comes down to dogma.

Re:Still no ZFS. (3, Interesting)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107718)

I'm not sure why we need to stick with Linux, per se, and what's wrong with OpenSolaris kernel/CDDL. Serious question here: is there something wrong I'm missing?

OpenSolaris was a dead platform the day Oracle bought Sun. You would be utterly insane to use it for anything important, today.

Re:Still no ZFS. (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107838)

I tried Nexenta but the userland tools seemed to be VERY lacking. Plus I run my OS box as a dom0 for Windows 7, XP, 2k and Debian.

But OS is starting to get a bit long in the tooth now that Oracle doesn't know what to do with it. But that was nearly a year ago. Maybe things have developed since then.

Debian just must have everything nearly magically automated because almost every arch I've run it on has every tool available.

Re:Still no ZFS. (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107934)

I want my TRIM too :)

Re:Still no ZFS. (1)

tehcyder (746570) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108520)

I believe that was an Emo Phillips joke originally.

The year of... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33106504)

2010 will be the year of Linux on the desktop. Eat that M$ and Crapple.

Re:The year of... (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106522)

Well its definitely the year of linux so far down in the guts of your cellphone that you don't know its there..

Re:The year of... (0, Flamebait)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107462)

Probably as it should be. At least then RMS and others purely in it for the politics won't notice it, claim credit for the work of others, try to take control and try to mess things up for everyone.

Re:The year of... (1)

uprise78 (1256084) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106552)

Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I hope you are kidding.

Re:The year of... (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106860)

Wow. Just wow. I'm speechless. I hope you are kidding.

Indeed. I pretty much switched over to Linux on the desktop in 2009.

Re:The year of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33107036)

lol

GPL Intellectual Theft (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33106590)

Hello,

As a consultant for several large companies, I'd always done my work on
Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do
some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was
very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our
exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.

Although we met several technical challenges along the way
(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we
were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process
went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were
considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.

So you can imagine our surprise when we were informed by a lawyer that
we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It
was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something
called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license
states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available.
Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money
we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would
now be available at no cost to our competitors.

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult
position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with
another solution. Although it was tough to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive
with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually
guarantee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my
experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my
associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to
something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source".
Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure
it remains only a bit player.

Thank you for your time.

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106618)

Too overt.

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (2, Informative)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106632)

But it's aged fairly well for being at least six years old [cnet.com] .

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (0, Offtopic)

jd (1658) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106708)

There's champagne that's drinkable after 200 years. Until the troll passes the century mark, I'm not going to consider it as even coming close to having been aged.

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (0, Offtopic)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106920)

Ah, a taste for the classics [wikipedia.org] .

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (-1, Redundant)

Abreu (173023) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106630)

Troll harder

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (3, Informative)

cjcela (1539859) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106668)

"Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable."

This sounds like FUD to me. I do not think the intent of your post is clean. Or maybe you have no clue and should consider getting better lawyers next time... then, if GPL still does not work for you, use some BSD flavor as OS for your next proyect.

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (1)

TangoMargarine (1617195) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106728)

I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source"

AAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA





(Junk down here to avoid the all-caps filter)

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (2, Funny)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106786)

Hello,

As a consultant for several large companies, I'd always done my work on Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux.

... then ...

although it was tough to do, there really was no
option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

Hey, David, is that you? Some times back I received an email from you (reproduced below): is the offer still available?

Dear Sir/M,
I am Mr.David Mark. an Auditor of a BANK OF THE NORTH INTERNATIONAL,ABUJA (FCT).
I have the courage to Crave indulgence for this important business believing that
you will never let me down either now or in the future.
Some years ago, an American Mining consultant/ contractor with the
Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation, made a numbered time (fixed) deposit
for twelve calendar months, valued $12M.USD (TWELVE MILLION US DOLLARS) in an account.

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (4, Funny)

Grey Ninja (739021) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106846)

Troll Review:

Believability: 1/10. I would have given you a zero, except I notice one comment here that seems to think it's a legitimate point.

Humour: 6/10. The punch line was honestly not expected, and elicited a smile from me. But it would need a bit more work to truly be hilarious.

Anger response: 4/10. A fairly good natured troll. It does little to incite anger, but I think that if you worked on it a bit more and made the story more plausible, you could be a real contender, inciting hundreds of flames.

Overall: 5/10. A nice effort, but a little too obvious, and the punchline just wasn't enough, given the length of the post. The punchline could have been delivered in one simple paragraph.

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (2, Informative)

Tuqui (96668) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106872)

Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

You should hire a better lawyer, GCC does NOT restrict develop non-free programs. Check the FAQ [gnu.org] for more info.

Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33106958)

This is an ancient, ancient troll. How do people keep falling for it?

funny ha haaa :o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108304)

> As a consultant for several large companies

Could you name some ?

> a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux

What was the name of this investment firm?

> The concept of having access to source code was very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our exacting standards

What projects do you work on that require recompiling the kernel :

> Although we met several technical challenges along the way
(specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support

Who still uses Token Ring ?

> and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system)

Enough of this bullshit already ...

Big Features? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33106666)

The big features to look out for include: "Transparent spreading of incoming network traffic load across CPUs, Btrfs improvements, KDB kernel debugger frontend, Memory compaction and Support for multiple multicast route tables"

I'm sure most or all of these mean nothing to 99%+ of Linux users. This isn't a big feature release; it's a small incremental improvement release.

Re:Big Features? (4, Funny)

FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106966)

Perhaps, in the same sense that "improved the reliability of the rear differential" means nothing to 99%+ of automobile owners.

Oh crap, did I just make a car analogy?

Re:Big Features? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33107128)

Yes, but it retains your own unique brand of faggotry, so it's still acceptable for /.

Re:Big Features? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108474)

Perhaps, in the same sense that "improved the reliability of the rear differential" means nothing to 99%+ of automobile owners.

Oh crap, did I just make a car analogy?

Don't worry, it was just a hatchback-sized one.

Re:Big Features? (2, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108530)

Perhaps, in the same sense that "improved the reliability of the rear differential" means nothing to 99%+ of automobile owners.

Because we all have front wheel drive cars?

Re:Big Features? (1)

adamofgreyskull (640712) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107230)

I think the stated "big"ness of those features is in comparison to the other, "lesser" features. It doesn't say it's a "big feature realease", anywhere.

once burned, twice shy (2, Interesting)

epine (68316) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106738)

Perhaps the people who fear Linus is going to burn out again spent too many years watching Seinfeld and deeply internalized "no hugging, no learning". Linus != George. OTOH, given his acidic tongue, he's probably not well suited to a career in stand up comedy. Anyone else think that Larry McVoy would make a good Kramer? </rimshot>

Re:once burned, twice shy (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#33106828)

Ballmer would make a much better Kramer [youtube.com] .

Re:once burned, twice shy (4, Insightful)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107950)

You have to admit, it's somewhat disconcerting that there's nobody in his coattails to take over.

Unlike Microsoft or some other big softare company/project, Linux really has one controlling hand. If Linus goes kaput tomorrow, face in his wheaties, it would take a non-trivial period of time to get someone up to speed and filling his shoes.

Sure, there are other "non-current" linux developers/maintainers, and there are many others who have been doing the job in the past. But that's an entirely different development model than the 2.6 tree has been, and there's nobody who "fills in" for Torvalds when he wants to take a break. The man is 40; he's going to have to slow down sooner than later. He's certainly not keeping up his percentage of code commits, nevermind the level of code (though the quality, quite possibly). He's got 3 daughters and a wife; the man has to sleep at SOME point.

That said, I'm really pleased to see the decrease in regressions. I was starting to think that it was all open source OSes that were going down the shitter of late, but I am pleased Linux is still improving (though I do still consider the removal of the anticipatory scheduler a regression).

It just makes me uneasy that anything as big as Linux has such a small point of failure. It's possible I'm overlooking the importance of the distro kernel teams and other people who contribute, or overlooking something else, but as it stands now, his continued pivotal position makes me uneasy.

The lack of a unified "stable" kernel for distros to pull from (given 2.6s continued march) and at the same time the lack of a "real" development/next-generation kernel makes me likewise uneasy.

Re:once burned, twice shy (5, Insightful)

gmack (197796) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108442)

You have to admit, it's somewhat disconcerting that there's nobody in his coattails to take over.

There are at least a couple of good developers who could easily take over starting with the maintainer of the linux-next tree and if there were a huge disagreement then I'm sure the Linux foundation can step in if need be.

The lack of a unified "stable" kernel for distros to pull from (given 2.6s continued march) and at the same time the lack of a "real" development/next-generation kernel makes me likewise uneasy.

You would only say that if you haven't been using Linux long enough to remember when it was exactly the way you wish for. Back in the 2.4.x / 2.5.x days, people got so tired of features taking so long to be ready they started backporting the changes from 2.5.x to 2.4.x essentially making both branches unstable. For all of the whining kernel releases are a lot less buggy with fewer distro deviations from mainline. And as a bonus features actually get better testing now because fewer changes need to be tested at a time.

After having lived through that transition I never want to go back.

Re:once burned, twice shy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33108682)

It just makes me uneasy that anything as big as Linux has such a small point of failure.

actually, having seen the bloat in Linus over the years, he's now a pretty big point of failure

I suppose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33107074)

I suppose if you're a linux fanbois such a minimal increment in kernel nomenclature is a very big deal. Maybe even warrants a slashdot article. (And people say it's Apple's Kool-aid...)

The man took a two week vacation twelve years ago. (2, Insightful)

ghjm (8918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107100)

Do we still have to talk about "burnout" every time we mention kernel maintenance?

Re:The man took a two week vacation twelve years a (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107164)

More than ever.

Re:The man took a two week vacation twelve years a (4, Funny)

JohnBailey (1092697) | more than 4 years ago | (#33107406)

Do we still have to talk about "burnout" every time we mention kernel maintenance?

Yep. It isn't a meme unless it gets repeated over and over.

Re:The man took a two week vacation twelve years a (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108636)

When did Linus get a motorcycle?

World of Warcraft 3.3.5 fix made it into 2.6.35 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33107382)

The fix for World of Warcraft under WINE made it into 2.6.35, though it is not mentioned in the changelist above. WoW 3.3.5 crashed under recent Linux kernels because it apparently made use of the "icebp" instruction, whatever that is; the kernel stopped sending SIGTRAP for icebp instructions in an earlier 2.6 build for whatever reason.

Diff of fix [kerneltrap.com]
Source code of file [kernel.org] , showing the icebp fix merged in (search for "icebp")
WINE compat page [winehq.org]

my wishlist (3, Informative)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 4 years ago | (#33108788)

Since there seems to be no place on the internet where to post feature-requests for linux, here's four points from my list:

1. User-space scheduling. It would be nice if a process could have better control on the priority of each of its threads. For example, on a web service where multiple users are active, it is often necessary to give each user his/her share of the cpu. Right now this is rather difficult to do in a fair way, since multiple threads may belong to the same user.

2. Recursive strace: Currently it is not possible to run "strace" on a process which is already being straced. So for example: "strace -f strace -f ls" will not work (you'll get an "operation not permitted" inside the first strace. This makes it impossible for programs to use strace (or the related ptrace system call), since other programs which might also use strace, may depend on them.

3. "Nice" for bandwidth. It would be great if there was a command similar to "nice", which acts not on cpu-cycles but instead on bandwidth.

4. "Select" or "poll" with access to inter-thread synchronization structures. Select and poll are system calls which act mainly on file-descriptors. However, sometimes you'd like to wait also on a mutex or semaphore. Some support for this would be great.

This list is just from the top of my head. I could probably come up with a lot more.

Alex

Re:my wishlist (1)

sick_soul (794596) | more than 4 years ago | (#33109318)

3. "Nice" for bandwidth. It would be great if there was a command similar to "nice", which acts not on cpu-cycles but instead on bandwidth.

This one is since a long time in my wishlist too.
Some tc and iptables magic can realize this (traffic shaping), but the nice/renice metaphor would be easier and make more sense.

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>