Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 3.0 Will Be Faster Than 2.6.39

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the phrase-in-person-hours-saved dept.

Operating Systems 179

sfcrazy writes "While we were thinking that the announcement of 3.x branch was nothing more than Linus' mood swing, it seems there is more to it. Linus wrote on the Linux Kernel Mailing List, '3.0 will still be noticeably faster than 2.6.39 due to the other changes made (ie the read-ahead), so yes, the regression itself is fixed.'"

cancel ×

179 comments

Marketing (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 2 years ago | (#36561842)

"Linus earlier said that there is no major change in this release."

//Sigh//

Re:Marketing (2)

3vi1 (544505) | about 3 years ago | (#36563220)

Not marketing. They very well could have been saying "2.6.40" will run faster.

I love Linux, but the post 2.6.38 kernels have developed in a way as to be completely random as to whether or not they will successfully boot on my x58/i980x motherboard/CPU. All kinds of breakage and improvements hit in the 2.6.39-40 cycle that are going to take a while to even out. So, don't expect the exact same experience as with the 2.6.38 kernel.

Re:Marketing (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#36563606)

Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com] which I've found in my own exp with Linux to be sadly all too true.

Re:Marketing (1)

Drinking Bleach (975757) | about 3 years ago | (#36563878)

Except all of the following are true now: 1. Flash is natively x86 64-bit 2. Flash is accelerated, smooth fullscreen on Intel GPUs. 2. Flash is accelerated, smooth fullscreen on NVIDIA GPUs. 2. Flash is accelerated, smooth fullscreen on AMD GPUs.

Re:Marketing (1)

Drinking Bleach (975757) | about 3 years ago | (#36563894)

OK That's what I get for posting soon after I wake up :P

Re:Marketing (1)

bonch (38532) | about 3 years ago | (#36564594)

Flash playback is still pretty choppy on Linux.

Re:Marketing (1)

3vi1 (544505) | about 3 years ago | (#36564312)

When was your experience? I haven't had Flash problems in Linux for about 3 years. Maybe it's my hardware... but you shouldn't expect Flash to run smoothly on your hardware if it wouldn't run Windows but at a snails pace.

irc.anonops.li (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36561858)

#ANTISEC

Well of course! Just like Firefox (0)

thomasdz (178114) | more than 2 years ago | (#36561876)

Linux 3 will be much faster than Linux 2. Firefox 5 will be much much MUCH faster than Firefox 4. Windows 7 will be much much faster than... uh... oh... nevermind.

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (2)

FooBarWidget (556006) | more than 2 years ago | (#36561946)

Your cynical undertone that software only get slower and slower is not true. Firefox 4 *is* faster than Firefox 3. Haven't used Firefox 5 yet. Phusion Passenger 3 [modrails.com] is 50% faster [phusion.nl] than Phusion Passenger 2.

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562592)

The second cake is even more delicious than the first.

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36562992)

The question is:
Is Firefox 4 faster than Firefox 2? Or Firefox 1.5?

Or are we just giving 50% discounts after markup of 250%?

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36563588)

Well, it depends what speed aspect is tested. FF4 and 5 are more bloated then FF3.6 .
Most benchmarks on mid-RAM and low-RAM machines favors 3.6.

(you may now skip any "go out and buy more oh-so cheap RAM" -speech)

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (2)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562008)

Well, Windows 7 *is* much faster than Vista.

Sarcasm fail.

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (2)

Lennie (16154) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562480)

Getting past Vista isn't a big achievement though.

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (2)

sortius_nod (1080919) | about 3 years ago | (#36562726)

True, but moving us die hards past XP was a big challenge. I use 7 now on my win box (for gaming).

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (0)

shaitand (626655) | about 3 years ago | (#36563462)

Especially since Windows 7 is just a vista service pack...

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (1)

rjch (544288) | about 3 years ago | (#36564290)

Especially since Windows 7 is just a vista service pack...

Windows 7 is a Vista service pack in the same way that XP was a service pack for 2000 - there were significant visual and under-the-hood changes. The visual changes were more noticible in XP since they introduced themes, but if you turned them off, XP looked about as similar to 2000 as 7 does to Vista.

In other words, they're more than just a service pack. Granted, not much more, but your statement is an oversimplification. In the case of Windows 7, it made an unusable OS something that didn't make you want to smash your computer into thousands of pieces.

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36563804)

No, the machines that ship with Windows 7 are much faster than the ones that shipped with Vista - and even then, only on the low end.

Having just switched from a 4 year old laptop on Vista to a brand new one on Windows 7, I see no noticeable difference.
99% of Windows 7's performance improvements over Vista are the Emporer's New Clothes effect.

The bloggers said it was, so it must be, because you wouldn't want to disagree with _The Bloggers_ now, would you?

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (0)

johnsnails (1715452) | about 3 years ago | (#36564972)

Biggest load of bull crap ever!!!! Vista was shat and only became usable after SP1. W7 was amazing from the RC.

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36562026)

Of course Windows 7 is much much faster than Windows 6, can't you count to 10? jeez

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562298)

there still people who care about speed ? the same ones that care about dick size ?

Mine are both are "good enough, now go do something interesting with it"

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (1)

creat3d (1489345) | about 3 years ago | (#36563130)

Just as there's STILL people out there that care about how big their HDDs are, how fast their GPUs are, etc. I think you just might have a small penis.

"Greener" not faster (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36563680)

I think the focus should be be on energy efficiency rather brute force speed. Intel and AMD have come to realize this rather late in the game, what with the ARM line of mobile processors now lording it over the x86 line of faster but less energy efficient desktop and laptop CPU's.

If I understand correctly, Linux has has major regression when it comes to energy use.

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36563824)

I am glad you're happy that RAM requirements are increasing. My computer is just fine and it will never be able to use more than 1 Gigabyte. I have a laptop which will never use more than 100 Megabyte, can't play you-tube, but can play DVD's just fine. There is no reason to require more RAM for the same set of features.

Re:Well of course! Just like Firefox (1)

GooberToo (74388) | about 3 years ago | (#36564422)

Perhaps you should learn to read. They has some regressions in performance from a specific kernel version forward. They have a fix for the regression; well, mostly so. Thusly, when the fix is released in the 3.x, Linux version 3.x will be faster than the window of Linux kernel versions in which the regression appeared. Saying Linux 3.x will be faster than 2.x is completely false and even acknowledged in the original Linus comment.

good riddance regression (1)

Tolar (225621) | more than 2 years ago | (#36561884)

good thing the regression is sorted. hope my USB 3.0 works better too ..

Re:good riddance regression (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36561948)

good thing the regression is sorted

Even the regressions are much faster in 3.0!

What, no major changes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36561890)

shit sounds primtime to me! Let's all upgrade then!!!

Faster? (3, Insightful)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#36561920)

What does faster mean? What will be faster? Are they talking huge Linux servers or Linux Desktops? Latency? User Interface?

Re:Faster? (0)

petteyg359 (1847514) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562010)

What are you smoking? Linux is a kernel, and kernels don't have a "User Interface"...

Re:Faster? (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562050)

Kernel optimizations could result in User Interface improvements. Or it could help batch jobs at the expense of the User Interface.

Re:Faster? (0)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562166)

Whats your point?

Seriously though, the entire OS is known as "Linux" not just the kernel. Is it correct to refer to the entire os as Linux? Maybe not. It happens though, and you just made yourself out to be a pedantic troll.

Re:Faster? (3, Insightful)

TarMil (1623915) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562340)

Well, the subject of the news is the kernel, not the rest of the OS.

Re:Faster? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36562614)

Pay attention to context. This article is about the kernel. You made a mistake, and it doesn't make them a pedantic troll to point out that you got the context wrong.

Re:Faster? (0)

Cwix (1671282) | about 3 years ago | (#36563276)

Lol I didn't make the original comment.

Pay attention.

Good advice, follow it.

Re:Faster? (1, Flamebait)

garyebickford (222422) | about 3 years ago | (#36562740)

Strictly speaking, Linux is the kernel - the 'entire OS' is properly GNU/Linux. Most of the core applications and libraries are from GNU. Ask Richard Stallman, he'll provide a couple of hours of instruction this topic, I'm sure.

Re:Faster? (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 3 years ago | (#36563486)

Actually in the case of a Macro kernel, the entire OS is the kernel and it is properly referred to as Linux. GNU makes some libs and userspace apps that you can run on the Linux OS though and many distributions package them together... those are properly referred to by the name of the distribution, which may or may not include the word Linux and may or may not include GNU. None of which is at the discretion of Stallman.

Re:Faster? (2)

garyebickford (222422) | about 3 years ago | (#36563636)

Whoof, we're going to get into the semantics of what an OS is here! My reference to RMS was not so much about discretion, but by his reputation for enthusiasm for discussing the topic. :)

However I will refer to this quote, from Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] to justify my stance that the kernel is not the OS, but a part of the OS. I will add that I've used many operating systems over the years, and the 'OS' has always referred to the complete package - kernel, core libraries, userland applications, IO and other hardware drivers, etc.

GNU/Linux is a term promoted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), its founder Richard Stallman, and its supporters, for operating systems that include GNU software and the Linux kernel.[1] The FSF argues for the term GNU/Linux because GNU was a longstanding project to develop a free operating system, of which they say the kernel was the last missing piece.[1] ...
Torvalds wrote, "Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere [...] Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software."[20] Torvalds also wrote during the 1992 Tanenbaum-Torvalds debate that, "As has been noted (not only by me), the linux kernel is a miniscule part of a complete system".[21]

Re:Faster? (4, Interesting)

shaitand (626655) | about 3 years ago | (#36563856)

"I will add that I've used many operating systems over the years, and the 'OS' has always referred to the complete package"

I wouldn't dare to suggest that computer science and not user perception is the best place to define an operating system.

Feel free to peruse this gem http://www.amazon.com/Operating-Systems-Design-Implementation-Second/dp/0136386776 [amazon.com] . It is computer science coursework that explains how to write an operating system... err kernel as you say.

As it happens, the MINIX operating system... err kernel, was used as the basis for the book. Once upon a time, Linus Torvalds set out to write an operating system and used this material as reference.

The same author wrote another book, "A History of Operating Systems". You need the history to understand. In the early days all computer operators were programmers and the operating system provided an abstraction between manually controlling the individual hardware components with directly input binary. The drivers, boot system, and memory management were clearly part of that abstraction but since programs weren't even stored but were input one off there was no such thing as a userland program being part of the operating system!

Later storage became more common and some operating systems included some additional helpful applications to make writing your programs easier and later yet pre-written programs began to spread. In some cases like the later dos and apple systems the operating system wasn't even available separately so it became common to refer to the entire operating system distribution as an operating system for short. Many less informed (which ultimately was most) users didn't even realize it was a shortened term.

Re:Faster? (4, Informative)

garyebickford (222422) | about 3 years ago | (#36564388)

Yep, I was there (almost) - some of my first programs were written in IBM 1130 Assembler. :) The machine had 16Kx16bit core, a 1 MB single-platter disk with a one second mean access time. I managed to thrash the poor beast once by nesting too many macros. The key fact is that the control program (pretty close to what we now call a kernel) was on the outside of the disk, the macro-assembler was in the middle, and the user programs were on the inside (or vice versa - I don't recall now). With only 16K of memory, everything the machine did had to be overlaid - except for about 200 bytes or so (I don't recall the number) of code that stayed resident during a job, that basically just knew how to get the next piece off the disk. That could now be called a very primitive kernel.

I suppose this could be considered equivalent in some ways to a bootstrap loader except it continued bootstrapping the various pieces in throughout the process of running a job. Every piece of code had to be loaded over the previous piece in order to run, and each time what we would now call the machine state had to be written to disk. So for each macro call, the machine had to swap bits of kernel, assembler and user code in and out, moving from the inside, to the outside, to the middle, to the outside, to the inside, etc., rinse & repeat. With a one-second access time the 15 minute maximum run time was exceeded before the assembler even finished assembling my 10 or 15 punched cards into machine code. It was a very compact program, but I never did get to run it in its full macro-bedecked glory. I had to turn the program into 100 or so cards of non-macrofied assembler.

I also (much later) had the fun of entering entire programs into an early microcomputer by flipping front panel switches, pushing the 'step' button, flipping panel switches, etc. - make one mistake, push 'reset' and start over. Seymour Cray, when he was still at Control Data Corporation (CDC) was famous for being able to enter the entire 6000 word control program into the early CDC machines from memory using the front panel switches.

So I would say that until we started getting into time-sharing and such complexities, the idea of a kernel wasn't really relevant - there was little or nothing resident in the computer's memory. I think I could safely say that is primarily what a kernel does in a modern multitasking system - provides the environment by which tasks can move safely and efficiently through the system. And the operating system includes all those non-kernel tasks, such as accounting, access control, logging, the many utilities required to provide everything from I/O to temperature control.

Just to put a stamp on this, Wikipedia on Kernels [wikipedia.org] :

In computing, the kernel is the central component of most computer operating systems; it is a bridge between applications and the actual data processing done at the hardware level. The kernel's responsibilities include managing the system's resources (the communication between hardware and software components).[1] Usually as a basic component of an operating system, a kernel can provide the lowest-level abstraction layer for the resources (especially processors and I/O devices) that application software must control to perform its function. It typically makes these facilities available to application processes through inter-process communication mechanisms and system calls.

Operating system tasks are done differently by different kernels, depending on their design and implementation. While monolithic kernels execute all the operating system code in the same address space to increase the performance of the system, microkernels run most of the operating system services in user space as servers, aiming to improve maintainability and modularity of the operating system.[2] A range of possibilities exists between these two extremes.

Re:Faster? (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 3 years ago | (#36565042)

It's GPL. That means that as long as I make the source code available when I release it, it is properly called anything I want it to be called.

Re:Faster? (2)

shaitand (626655) | about 3 years ago | (#36563476)

Actually the entire OS is the kernel. It's windows and macites who push to redefine the OS as being the entire distribution.

Re:Faster? (1)

Cwix (1671282) | about 3 years ago | (#36564208)

My point is that it doesn't really matter in the long run.

People will call it what they will. Yelling at them that they are calling it the wrong thing will only make you look like an anti-social geek. Its like the people who refer to their tower as the cpu, or the ones who refer to the hard drive as memory. You can correct them all day long, it doesnt matter though. If there are enough people then eventually the term gets redefined. Language evolves, not much a few people can do about it.

Re:Faster? (1)

pjbgravely (751384) | about 3 years ago | (#36564450)

I think you are correct.

From now on I will use (Hacker, cracker, script-kiddie), (virus, worm, trojan), (kernel, OS, windows) all interchangeably. I even think I am going to believe in a year zero too.

No really, I give up.

Re:Faster? (1)

Cwix (1671282) | about 3 years ago | (#36564790)

You don't spit into the wind. Why not its pointless.

I get your sarcasm, all I'm saying is that people can get mad all they want, its just not going to make much of a difference. Feel free to continue to correct people if you wish. Good luck.

Re:Faster? (1)

pjbgravely (751384) | about 3 years ago | (#36564884)

LOL no I actually will try to give up. Even scientists now in reports start decades like there is a year zero. I couldn't care less about the masses, and their modems, I just play along. What I will try to give up on is professionals having any grasp of proper terms.

Re:Faster? (2)

toadlife (301863) | about 3 years ago | (#36564414)

Good luck operating your system with just the kernel.

Re:Faster? (0)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562184)

Basically what benchmarks are the looking at when they say faster? Serving HTML? Boot time? Responsiveness in Quake? Processing reports in a Cron job? What machines are considering will be using this kernel when they ran their tests? Supercomputers? Desktops? Cellphones? Embedded Systems?

Faster if pretty vague

Re:Faster? (1)

petteyg359 (1847514) | about 3 years ago | (#36563620)

Not a single thing you just listed is a kernel operation. This thread has been infested by successful zombies (they have eaten your brain).

Re:Faster? (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#36562642)

Sure they do. See /usr/man/man2 ... or wherever your distro has moved the freaking man pages to, because this RH5 I'm on hid the fucking things in /usr/share/man/en...

Re:Faster? (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 3 years ago | (#36564500)

You don't browse the web with sysctl?

Re:Faster? (2)

DirePickle (796986) | about 3 years ago | (#36563316)

Obviously it means that Javascript will execute faster! Javascript is the alpha and the omega!

Windows 8 (1)

carlosap (1068042) | more than 2 years ago | (#36561936)

will be faster than windows 7, and iOS 5 would be faster too.

Re:Windows 8 (4, Insightful)

Annirak (181684) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562570)

Windows Vista was slower than Windows XP.

You win some, you lose some.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

swalve (1980968) | about 3 years ago | (#36563146)

On shitty hardware, yes. On good hardware, it was just fine. It was a new, upgraded, more bells and whistles thing. Why shouldn't it be slower? You ask something to do more, you expect that it is going to take up more resources. It wasn't perfect, and I didn't like it very much, but saying it was slower than a lower featured, 10 year old operating system with a straight face is kind of ridiculous.

Re:Windows 8 (3, Insightful)

aeoo (568706) | about 3 years ago | (#36563340)

On shitty hardware, yes.

When you compare two versions of the same operating system to determine which version is faster, you always use the exact same hardware configuration for both.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 3 years ago | (#36563492)

Since the vista service pack, windows 7, runs nearly as fast as XP when given enough hardware I guess some of us would have expected at least that level of performance at initial release.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36563160)

If you really want to blow your mind, load Windows 3.1 or Linux 1.x (like an ancient Slackware release) on a modern workstation. Holy. Fucking. Shit. It's fast as hell. Two second boot time, apps open instantaneously, etc.

Generally speaking every release of Windows, Linux, or OSX is slower than the last (OSX is kind of funky, sometimes they make it faster because OSX is slow as hell in general). Vista was exceptionally bad but just because Windows 7 is faster than Vista doesn't mean it's faster than XP (it's not).

Bloated slowass software, it's what we have to live with. Modern programmers have no clue what morons they truly are.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

McNihil (612243) | about 3 years ago | (#36563378)

You know its bloated when even

ls -la /usr/bin/vim
2819728 /usr/bin/vim

+5MB for the system libs.

Sure just 0.5MB when it is running...

I remember like it was yesterday that I complained vehemently that the text editor used up more than 17k.

"We are all bloated now"

Re:Windows 8 (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 3 years ago | (#36563512)

Could be worse, could be emacs.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

habig (12787) | about 3 years ago | (#36563944)

"eight megs and constantly swapping" used to be what emacs stood for. Imagine how svelte it would be if it were only eight megs today! Typed in a 173 meg firefox process, which is indeed positively svelte compared to the 700+MB it was yesterday - "firefox 4 is better and faster" my butt.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 3 years ago | (#36563506)

Good luck running dos 6.22 (that was the OS, not the 3.1 gui) on a modern workstation.

Re:Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36564808)

I think they're talking about NT 3, but whatevs.

Re:Windows 8 (2)

westlake (615356) | about 3 years ago | (#36563278)

Windows Vista was slower than Windows XP.

When, where, why, and by how much?

Re:Windows 8 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36563830)

Always, Everywhere. Because Vista was more bloated and buggy (more then XP. yikes).
'This' much.

In fairness, XP and Vista both blows. But in different ways.

Re:Windows 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36563066)

windows 7 was faster than vista due to the catchup in hardware by the time windows 7 came out but also but optimizations made
windows 8 will "seem" faster than windows 7 but only due to hardware catching up. otherwise little else has changed.

iOS5 will 'seem' faster due to initially being deployed on new hardware
(and heavily displayed / marketed / shown running on said hardware)
like other iOS upgrades, running it on an older iphone/ipad will be slow

so the only real improver over time was the vista to win7 jump
where win7 actually resulted in a relaxed hardware requirement

Re:Windows 8 (1)

luke923 (778953) | about 3 years ago | (#36563752)

iOS 5 would be faster too.

I thought Cisco was calling their operating systems NX-OS. Even still, isn't that like a really old release? I remember working on IOS 11 back in the late 90's.

It should have compelling features (0)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 2 years ago | (#36561952)

A major version should always have compelling features or a shift in model such as drivers.

Re:It should have compelling features (2)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562336)

A major version should always have compelling features or a shift in model such as drivers.

The Linux development model no longer makes that a useful way to designate version numbers. Why should we be so dead-set on the tradition of version numbers that we can't even break out of that mold when it's useful to do so?

Re:It should have compelling features (2)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562566)

Because some people on the autistic spectrum react badly to changes in established patterns. Remember when Rainman didn't get to watch Whopner? Same thing here. It doesn't make a lot of sense to most folks, but it helps to see it from their viewpoint.

Re:It should have compelling features (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36562632)

Wapner.

Re:It should have compelling features (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about 3 years ago | (#36563872)

Wapner. Definitely, definitely Wapner.

Re:It should have compelling features (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562512)

No, it should mean whatever the Linus decides it means. It is his to do with as he likes. If you want you can fork Linux into Bluenix and use your version numbers.

Re:It should have compelling features (1)

EyelessFade (618151) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562574)

It may, but since Linux has been time driven rather then feature driven for the last 6 years it shouldn't be so. Also 3.0 marks Linux 20 year Anniversary

Re:It should have compelling features (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#36562684)

A major version should show up every six months with whatever we feel like dropping into it at that point.

Signed,
Mark Shuttleworth

Copypasta (1, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 2 years ago | (#36561954)

Nice way to be a simple news aggregator, Slashdotitors. Is Roland Piquipaille on your staff?

Re:Copypasta (1, Funny)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#36562692)

RSS is a news aggregator. /. is a news aggravator.

Re:Copypasta (0)

Greyfox (87712) | about 3 years ago | (#36562796)

That guy's still around? I heard a rumor he died of anal warts.

Horrible way to go. Tsk tsk tsk...

Re:Copypasta (0)

Briareos (21163) | about 3 years ago | (#36562878)

Contrary to popular belief Slashdot's editors at least pretend to have a pulse, as opposed to the late Roland...

Re:Copypasta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36564686)

His wikibituary tells of his frequent contributions to Slashdot:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Piquepaille

Someone should post as him to scare the living

linux 3.0 (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 2 years ago | (#36561976)

Linus earlier said that there is no major change in this release. This version comes with the usual two thirds driver changes, and a lot of random fixes.

please tell me he isn't thinking about adopting firefox and chrome's release model...
in all seriousness, it still looks like this is more of a rumor than anything that is going to be done for a while.

Re:linux 3.0 (3, Informative)

Kufat (563166) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562016)

They're currently on 3.0 RC4. [kernel.org] So I imagine that what will and won't be in the release has pretty much solidified by this point.

Re:linux 3.0 (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562028)

To be fair, they've been introducing some pretty big changes in 2.6.38 and 39, enough that I am reluctant to upgrade from 2.6.36 on any servers because it's just been changing TOO quickly and I'm afraid of new bugs.

Re:linux 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36562818)

Haven't been able to boot 2.6.39 as someone broke support for my old ATA chipset.

Re:linux 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36562100)

No, more like Linus decided it was time to finally increment the major version number. It will probably stay at 3.x about as long as it stayed at 2.6.x.

Re:linux 3.0 (1)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#36562706)

Hell, he coulda gone to 2.7 if he was tired of feeling old.

Re:linux 3.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36562922)

2.7 would be the development branch iirc. Frankly this should have been 2.8.

Re:linux 3.0 (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 3 years ago | (#36563542)

It marks the 20th anniversary of Linux. It really isn't that hard to understand wanting a major release to mark it.

prefetch() (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36562022)

According to LWN article about removing prefetch [lwn.net] , the linux kernel 3.0.0 will have a bunch of prefetch() calls removed from the kernel.

Apparently they were supposed to provide hints to the CPU to prefetch the next item in linked lists, but the hardware does a superior job of it without the hints. Especially in the case of the next item being NULL, which was the majority of the cases.

A very small speedup to be sure, but it's not like there are many low hanging huge wins left.

Re:prefetch() (2)

ZombieBraintrust (1685608) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562434)

So it should be slightly faster on new chips. Slightly slower on outdated or specialized embedded chips. (No big deal they can use an version or a custom kernel)

Re:prefetch() (3, Insightful)

Annirak (181684) | more than 2 years ago | (#36562596)

If this is the case, wouldn't CONFIG_USE_PREFETCH be a better solution?

Re:prefetch() (1)

swillden (191260) | about 3 years ago | (#36564142)

If this is the case, wouldn't CONFIG_USE_PREFETCH be a better solution?

It seems likely that any CPU which has the prefetch instruction also does hardware pre-fetching.

Re:prefetch() (2)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#36562718)

It ought to be controlled by a CPU #define, if it makes that much difference.

Stronger but safer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36562548)

I was wondering if the new kernel was going to be more secure and stable then previous releases. Certain modules crash for now reason on the current release. Anyone know?

Obviously (3, Funny)

vga_init (589198) | about 3 years ago | (#36562680)

What with the shorter version number, the kernel should now load faster, use less memory, and execute more quickly.

Re:Obviously (1)

shaitand (626655) | about 3 years ago | (#36563572)

Totally, every single time a system call that returns the version string is run it will load faster, use less memory, and execute more quickly!

Re:Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36564770)

Yeah, like how Vista is shorter than Millenium, and 7 is shorter than XP. . .

The english language isn't not hard (1)

rush2049 (980385) | about 3 years ago | (#36563156)

That article has so many spelling mistakes.... relese? What is that?

Of course! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36563452)

Linux 3.0 will be roughly 15% faster than Linux 2.6.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...