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!

A Linux Kernel More Stable Than -stable

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the linux-gets-a-day-job dept.

Software 142

jfruhlinger writes '-stable' is the term for the current Linux release most suitable for general use; but as Linux moves into more and more niches, there's a need for a kernel more stable than -stable, which is updated fairly regularly. Both enterprise and embedded systems in particular need a longer horizon of kernel stability, which prompted Greg Kroah-Hartman, then at SuSE, to establish a -longterm kernel, which will remain stable for up to two years. Now there are moves to get this schedule formalized — moves that are a good sign of Linux's long-term health."

cancel ×

142 comments

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

a first post more first post than first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112762)

I heard you like frosty piss in your frosty piss, so I frosty piss in your frosty piss so you can frosty piss while you frosty piss.

Re:a first post more first post than first post (0)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113072)

"I heard you like frosty piss in your frosty piss, so I frosty piss in your frosty piss so you can frosty piss while you frosty piss."

Keep your Coors Light commercials to yourself.

Re:a first post more first post than first post (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113148)

I, for one, would never have guessed that. Apart from being illogical, the statement had no value regardless of the .

In fact, it's a first post, that's all there was to it, until you told. So "the upshot of all this is" that - you advertised Coors Light more than the OP! Thank you!

Re:a first post more first post than first post (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113180)

Wow! That's the first time the lameness filter has eaten parts of my post like that - and considering how lame some of my posts are.,, anyway on with the corrections.

After "regardless of the" there's a variable place holder in angled brackets called insert liquid here. After told, it said "me". Until you told me, it was a first post, see?

Thank you...

Re:a first post more first post than first post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113460)

After "regardless of the" there's a variable place holder in angled brackets called insert liquid here.

Duh? You have to do < to get a left angle bracket. You truly must be new here.

Re:a first post more first post than first post (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113704)

And you must use &amp; to get &lt;.

Re:a first post more first post than first post (1)

wsxyz (543068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113220)

Ugh....

Your mother. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112768)

Sucks cocks in hell.

first, lol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112782)

first, bitches

Good (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112812)

Maybe other open source projects take the hint and provide something where I can install and not worry about it breaking every few months. You don't buy a new car every month.

Re:Good (1)

omglolbah (731566) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112858)

sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get upgrade
hit "y" if needed.

Yay, done with maintenance for a while.

I have yet to have an issue with the machine and I've been using it for 4 years as a fileserver, media-center, router and various other tasks.

Re:Good (1)

casings (257363) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112884)

Speaking of which...

Re:Good (2)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113198)

Speaking of which... I think I guessed that you were about to suggest backup? Maintenance isn't limited to upgrades, you know! Preventative maintenance is much more effective than hard disk recovery!

Re:Good (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113598)

When was the last time you performed a backup on your wireless router?

Embedded systems is the focus of this article.

Re:Good (2)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#37115406)

Embedded systems is the focus of this article.

Indeed. When was the last time you did a kernel update on your washer or car? Yet, the manufacturer must be able to do so if a serious flaw is discovered down the road.

2 years is laughable. In the embedded world, 10 years would be more like it.

Also consider the need for long-term stable kernels outside the embedded world. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is supported for 7-10 years with a support agreement. RHEL5 is still at 2.6.18, and will stay so for years. Maintaining compatibility is paramount to many businesses.
Red Hat, being a big vendor, is able to backport important patches into the 2.6.18 kernel, but not everyone has that luxury, and may look upstreams for their patches.

2 years for stable, and 10 years for longterm stable would be better. Reintroducing the odd-for-unstable naming convention would also help, IMHO.

Re:Good (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112890)

sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude -y upgrade

Avoid that bothersome last step.

Re:Good (2)

isama (1537121) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113142)

echo ''sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude -y upgrade' > update.sh; chmod +x update.sh
./update.sh

only repeat the last step. more efficient in the long run.

Re:Good (2)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113502)

echo alias update=''sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude -y upgrade" > ~/.bashrc

From any subsequent bash session, just run 'update'. More properly it should be added to .bash_aliases with its inclusion enabled in .bashrc, but splitting hairs kills the fun. =)

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113726)

echo alias update=''sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude -y upgrade" > ~/.bashrc

echo alias update=''sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude -y upgrade" >> ~/.bashrc

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113836)

echo alias update=''sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude -y upgrade" > ~/.bashrc

echo alias update=''sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude -y upgrade" >> ~/.bashrc

wuauclt /detectnow

-or if you prefer to use your computer instead of typing on it: Start - Windows Updates - Check For Updates

Re:Good (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 2 years ago | (#37114392)

I prefer to use my computer then to be told to restart every 10 minutes.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37114860)

Or if you prefer to conserve oxygen for useful purposes, kill yourself now.

BTW, it's "Windows Update", not "Windows Updates": FAIL.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113550)

cronjob it. Even more efficient

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113578)

Yay, done with maintenance for a while.

This isn't about your server or your workstation.

Its about your wifi routers ADSL modems, cable modems, and electric toasters , and everything else that has linux embedded these days, many millions of which are attached directly to the net, serving as your first line of defense.

Not one in a hundred wifi routers get updated over their life span.

I have servers running ancient linux. (Embarrassed to say just HOW old). They do specific tasks and have no user accounts, and they reside on the Local net, but still any disgruntled employee could own them if they tried. There is no patch source for these old installations, and trying to back port security patches is simply a non-starter.

Two years is not enough. 5 years is marginal. Even then, I want nothing but security patches. If I need the next version of something I'll upgrade, but for embedded devices or single purpose servers, all I need is security fixes.

Use ancient linux's (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#37115344)

Why not use Caldera, or Corel Linux, or something as old from companies that are either no longer around, or who no longer do Linux? If it's a Debian based distro, patch it up w/ the latest from Debian, but otherwise, it seems to meet your requirements - much more than 5 years. Chances are that even Linux crackers won't be interested in those, and you can build it into anything - your garage, your car, your home security system, anything!

Re:Good (1)

Lanteran (1883836) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113632)

Better: pacman -Syu

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113782)

Personally, I prefer
# pacman -Syu

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112868)

you realy dont understand free software and open source.

Re:Good (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112900)

No, but you get your car serviced every few months...

Re:Good (1)

aacosta (607712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113032)

You don't buy a new car every month.

You don't frequently install or update anything in your car either (I cannot think of any other way in which it can break every few months). I am sick of the comparison between the car and desktop-computer industries.

Re:Good - sacrilege (4, Funny)

rust627 (1072296) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113838)

"....... I am sick of the comparison between the car and desktop-computer industries."

This is /. How dare you sir.

for such a sacrilegious statement you should go to the front counter and hand in your slashdot number and name /. without Car analogies would be like.... like....., like a car without seats.

Re:Good (2)

GreyLurk (35139) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113320)

Ubuntu has their LTS releases, which aim for the same thing. No "new feature" releases, just stability and security upgrades.

breaking every few months? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37114870)

"Maybe other open source projects take the hint and provide something where I can install and not worry about it breaking every few months. You don't buy a new car every month".

Who's forcing you to upgrade?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37115056)

No, but you might *steal* a car every month. Maybe a Pontiac Torrent?

Red Hat (3, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112832)

Isn't this basically what Red Hat does - back porting security and bug fixes to an established maintenance point for the kernel and many of their other packages?

Re:Red Hat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112924)

Yea, but according to Greg KH, distributions are not the only users of Linux kernel who need a long term support. Consumer devices and other embedded systems that just need the kernel without the "GNU" part could do with support too.

Re:Red Hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113008)

Couldn't you simply take the kernel sources from a distributor and simply compile it for your own distribution?

Besides, I don't see why you couldn't just use a gentoo based system for any consumer devices.

Re:Red Hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113082)

You could, but is that distribution going to provide 2 years of stability? Most likely not.

Re:Red Hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113112)

Just a guess, but I think the groups that need it used it and maintained it themselves till now. But it's always good to have community support, no? And given that Greg K-H was already doing that for Novell, he is more or less extending it to the community.

Re:Red Hat (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113634)

And then put that into your embedded device....

Ya, that'll work.

Re:Red Hat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113280)

and debian. which reminds me, there are a lot of bugs there introduced from maintainer backporting fixes badly or proactively fixing stuff that isn't broken, like the time they totally botched ssh security.

http://digitaloffense.net/tools/debian-openssl/

freezing the codebase independently from the actual developers and maintainers is a recipe for a disaster, and simply there isn't manpower to waste in the open source community for two year stability maintenance of the full software stack (kernel wil get you only so far, libc will cover more, but you need a whole stable distro to get you anywhere).

Re:Red Hat (1)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#37114324)

This does not help help RH most direct competitor SUSE.
To me this looks like it could be a SUSE ploy to get a stable kernel to compete with RH while not having to do all the work. Debian would like this as well.
Or being less cynical they are making something that other distros can use like OBS and zypper ended up being used by Meego.

Re:Red Hat (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 2 years ago | (#37114644)

> Isn't this basically what Red Hat does - back porting security and bug fixes to an established maintenance point for the kernel and many of their other packages? 2.6.18 forever!

Fuck, just use FreeBSD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112876)

Anyone needing that kind of stability should just use FreeBSD. They know how to put together a rock-solid system, and they have sensible release policies to ensure that their releases are very usable many years after first released.

Even the best "enterprise-grade" Linux distributions pale in comparison to FreeBSD and everything that it offers. It's a complete system that just works.

Re: BSD. (0)

wrightrocket (1664871) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113064)

Anyone needing that kind of stability should just use FreeBSD. They know how to put together a rock-solid system, and they have sensible release policies to ensure that their releases are very usable many years after first released.

Even the best "enterprise-grade" Linux distributions pale in comparison to FreeBSD and everything that it offers. It's a complete system that just works.

Just not for enterprise-grade businesses.. who wants a "complete system" that's almost completely dead like anything BSD (Berkeley So Dead)? With Red Hat, they have seven years of support for each major release from a regular subscription contract, and even extended life support contracts for more time than that.

Re: BSD. (4, Interesting)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113524)

Hello constant updates is not a sign of Stability!
The problem is there isn't much need for commercial support for something that doesn't break all the time.

I have used RedHat in a server farm of over 1000 systems and I have used FreeBSD in servers systems that were a little smaller.

The BSD generally run's behind in code version on the application side, but these are more stable and not constantly pushing the bleeding edge. It's used inside Router and Big server farms and so tends to be better on the network side.

With Red hat we had so many problem with the BNX/BNX2 10 GB ethernet drivers, it was a nightmare scenario with over $500,000K in blade servers constantly crashing, there were the HP vendor drivers, and the RH drivers and the Linux main line drivers, which we ended up building and using till RH caught up.

FreeBSD is hardly dead. Some of the fastest network drivers exist in FreeBSD.
At this point the BSD's are almost a flavor of Linux. There is a Linux compatibility layer also.

I have written drivers for Both BSD and Linux. BSD drivers are generally much clean and more straight forward and it's because of them that many HW vendors bring up a BSD driver first even if they choose never to share it.

Re: BSD. (0)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37114388)

With Red hat we had so many problem with the BNX/BNX2 10 GB ethernet drivers, it was a nightmare scenario with over $500,000K in blade servers constantly crashing, there were the HP vendor drivers, and the RH drivers and the Linux main line drivers, which we ended up building and using till RH caught up.

Next time build a test lab so that your QA group within IT, can validate the software you're about to deploy.

Lack of preparation on your part doesn't constitute an emergency on anybody elses.

Next time, please sign your comment with your company so I can validate that I do not have any working relationship or consume your company's products.

Re: BSD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37114852)

or sometimes linux is a chunk of shit that only works by the will of some nut admin and some shitty python patches, heh the last time I used Ass Hat linux the fucking GCC compiler was broken, had been broken for a year, and took another year to unfuck, there is quality I can depend on.

Re: BSD. (1)

oztiks (921504) | more than 2 years ago | (#37115242)

Yeah, you say that till you have driver issues on your band spanking new Dell running Windows Server. HockeyPuck, has a point that you should lab the performance of the box before deploying a bunch of Blades. The kind of money you have to put down for that! It's always wise to make sure they're going to work.

But who hasn't been there when you trust the vendors just a little too much, purchase a bunch of new gear and the OS and the Hardware simply doesn't mesh.

An example of the gamble you play with new tech. I've had a bunch of HP G5's and G4's running all on Debian we used the G4's as our DR. The G4's are 2 years older than the G5's but they kept running and running and running. Meanwhile 6 months into using the new kit it kept blowing harddisks left right centre. We patched the firmware on the controllers and presto all fixed - sometimes it just isn't the OS's fault either!

Re: BSD. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37115144)

Wonder if its the same John Sokol

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/john-sokol/0/393/69 [linkedin.com]

Re: BSD. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37115478)

Dear Mr Puck,

    > please sign your comment with your company
    You don't sign with your company nor do you even use your real name, you are hardly in a position for such a lecture.

    The company was Citrix. They did validate the hardware with load simulators running for a weeks and the problem wasn't apparent.

  But a live customer load with over 190,000 live TCP session on some hosts it could still take weeks before we say a glitch, and it wasn't clear what the cause was. Some times it's a bad drive or ram. A host will die every now and again for no apparent reason. It's the nature of the beast.

    Sometimes these things take months to show up on a single machine, but with a cloud with 1000's of hosts and live traffic loads, it suddenly become a constant problem.

For example say a problem only crops up every 720 hours. (24 hr * 30 days = once per month) Not unusual since it could be a 64 bit int overflowing for example.
But the QA is only for a week and the loads aren't quite the same as live traffic.

With a thousand hosts, 33 systems per day would fail.

Now with the BNX problem the host just drop off the network, meaning you can't ssh in to the host! All Logging and SNMP data just stops and the host is no longer ping-able.
You can only use the Remote console manually which is slow as mud, and a real pain.

In reality we rolled those hosts out slowly 10 then 100 and tried a variety of driver version till we found a stable one but it was still 3 times per day(Or Night at 3am even) we had to have someone reboot these and restart the software, and bring the host back in to service.

It's even worse when we would roll out a YUM update in Red Hat and it would break things. Since we were mandated to have every host be within 90 days for PCI compliance.

     

Re:Fuck, just use FreeBSD. (1)

arose (644256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113472)

Anyone needing that kind of stability should just use FreeBSD.

Anyone who is comfy installing all applications and back porting security fixes for them that is. The packages are less than stable on FreeBSD.

Perfect! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112902)

Now if they'd just include a few of the newer fs drivers... ;)

security patches (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37112920)

A primary reason for -stable being "updated fairly regularly" is to push out security bugfixes. But maybe you don't want those...

Re:security patches (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113094)

>A primary reason for -stable being "updated fairly regularly" is to push out security bugfixes. But maybe you don't want those...

I think the more stable than -stable is like stable, but just for a longer time, so yes, we want the fixes and with this we get them for longer.

Do Firefox Devs Dream of Stable Releases? (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 2 years ago | (#37112986)

Both enterprise and embedded systems in particular need a longer horizon of kernel stability, which prompted Greg Kroah-Hartman, then at SuSE, to establish a -longterm kernel, which will remain stable for up to two years.

Have you ever taken a Kroah-Hartman test? It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response.

Hartman: You're in a repository, compiling a kernel, when all of a sudden you look down.
Dotzler: What version?
Hartman: What?
Dotzler: What version?
Hartman: It doesn't make any difference what version - it's completely hypothetical.
Dotzler: That's what I've been trying to convince the world all week!
Hartman: Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down at the screen and see the codebase in TortoiseGIT. It's crawling toward release.
Dotzler: TortoiseGIT? What's that?
Hartman: You know what TortoiseSVN was?
Dotzler: Of course!
Hartman: Same thing.
Dotzler: I've never seen a stable UI. But I understand what you mean.
Hartman: You merge some code down, change the UI, and increment the release number just for the hell of it, Asa.
Dotzler: Do you make up these questions Mr. Hartman? Or do Slashdotters just write cheap pop culture parodies instead of working?
Hartman: The project lays on its back, its belly baking in the white-hot flames of a thousand angry users, beating its legs trying to make itself stable but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
Dotzler: What do you mean I'm not helping?
Hartman: I mean you're not helping! Why is that, Asa? (pause) They're just questions, Asa. In answer to your query, it was either this or a filk based on a Rob Zombie song. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response. Shall we continue?
Dotzler: Nothing is worse than having an itch you can never scratch!
Hartman: Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about your mother.
Dotzler: My mother?
Hartman: Yeah.
Dotzler: Let me tell you about my mother... *BLAM BLAM BLAM*

"More stable than -stable", that's our motto.

Re:Do Firefox Devs Dream of Stable Releases? (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113268)

Thank you. I have 5 mod points, but I posted above and don't want to undo my trolling lol - but thank you. This. Is. Brilliant!

Re:Do Firefox Devs Dream of Stable Releases? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113786)

Well, anyone who would do kernel work using TortoiseGIT (a tool exclusively used by Windows-landen wimps) deserves Dotzler's ire alright...

Re:Do Firefox Devs Dream of Stable Releases? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113532)

+1

WTF?!?! Did Ditzler drop by to mod you down? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113574)

no text necessary

Re:Do Firefox Devs Dream of Stable Releases? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113868)

I want more runtime, fucker!

What will this do to version numbering? (2, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113076)

Since the -longterm is going to have to be based off of a -stable release and be maintained off that branch, we end right back where we were, with four version numbers, each level denoting the number of rounds of fixes applied to the number to the left. Only there's now going to be increased stagger, since stable will lag behind the release and longterm will lag behind stable. (They have to.)

If we're going to have lots of version numbers, then going back to the odd/even minor digit makes more sense than to do rapid increments. Yes, this pushes us out to five digits, which is borderline insane, but it is then five digits that carry specific pieces of discrete information rather than four digits where two don't necessarily convey a whole lot.

Re:What will this do to version numbering? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113272)

It sounds like -longerm is just this guy's fork. I don't think it will affect how Linus numbers the mainline kernel.

Re:What will this do to version numbering? (5, Informative)

MasterPatricko (1414887) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113388)

"this guy" is Greg K-H, second-in-command to Linus and the maintainer of the -stable tree. His arguments were one of the main reasons Linus changed the 3.0 numbering. Greg is just proposing that he maintains another tree officially, not a "fork".
As for version numbering, I think there will be 3 numbers - first two for mainline releases, and one more for stable/longterm patch level. I don't think -longterm will be needing an extra number.

Re:What will this do to version numbering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113516)

Since the -longterm is going to have to be based off of a -stable release and be maintained off that branch, we end right back where we were, with four version numbers, each level denoting the number of rounds of fixes applied to the number to the left.

The longterm releases have existed for a while now. They pick up a stable release that would otherwise have been abandoned and receive no more bugfixes, and then they just keep incrementing.

For example 2.6.32 was released in December 2009. The first two bugfixes for that release were also released that month and called 2.6.32.1 and 2.6.32.2. The bugfixes kept coming until 2.6.32.27 in December 2010. At that point there would have been no more bugfixes for 2.6.32 if it hadn't been picked up for a longterm release. In January 2011 the first bugfix for the longterm release was released with version number 2.6.32.28. It still receives bugfixes, and probably will continue for a while. Ubuntu 10.04 use 2.6.32, and the server version is intended to be supported until 2015.

The numbering scheme probably isn't going to change much in the future. One component was trimmed off by replacing 2.6 with just 3. That meant the last two numbers used for feature releases and stable/longterm bugfixes each moved one position up.

Heh. It used to be called "Solaris" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113100)

Stable as you could possibly want.

(And FWIW, if you call it "slow walrus", you don't know what you're doing...)

Re:Heh. It used to be called "Solaris" (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113218)

What if I call it Slow Loris?

its not stable (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113186)

its ultra championship edition stable!

Re:its not stable (1)

webmistressrachel (903577) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113286)

You've been playing too much Unreal Tournament. Not that that's a bad thing (unless you're playing it in software rendering on a Pentium!)

Another thought... (2)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113192)

Yes, a static baseline is great for certification programs such as EAL [commoncriteriaportal.org] and FAA approval [lynuxworks.com] , but it's not the only sort of "stable" that you want. Data centres want a "carrier-grade" OS (which means five nines reliability). They don't necessarily care if they have to patch, since you can now hot-patch the kernel without taking it down, but they absolutely do not want the software to show any unreliability whatsoever. They'd likely get upset at having to patch more than once a year, since in-situ patching isn't always safe, but if you're limited to a few minutes downtime a year on a server as an absolute maximum (this is ignoring failover, etc, that's a whole different issue than a specific physical or virtual server instance being five nines) then I could see it being tolerated a whole lot more than a blind kernel upgrade at year's end.

(This assumes that the hot upgrades can be made fault-tolerant enough that a brown-paper-bag release - you know they're going to happen on any tree eventually - can be backed out without violating five nines.)

Negaverse (3)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113206)

Wait, a piece of software moving towards a slower, more enterprise-friendly release system, in direct contradiction of recent trends (see: Firefox 10)?

Re:Negaverse (2)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113322)

What you're missing is that Firefox doesn't want to target the enterprise. What Mozilla is missing is that if they fail to target the enterprise, IE pretty much carries the day there.

Re:Negaverse (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113562)

Who is Mozilla targeting? If they are not going after the enterprise are they going after the basement hobbyist? Or the firefox developer? Surely grandma would like to provide an easy answer to the request "Grandma, click on Help then About Firefox, and tell me the number next to Version..."

Re:Negaverse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113584)

No, that can't be true! As Asa has said repeatedly "version numbers confuse people" which is why they have to hide it away. And since he makes this claim it must be true despite the complete lack of any evidence to back this up or any actual users asking that Firefox hide the version number. But since is the holy word of Asa Dotzler, peace be upon him, and he is infallible how dare you question him!!

Re:Negaverse (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113746)

Nope, they're targeting the other 99.99% of the population you chose to ignore.

Re:Negaverse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37114042)

Ah yes, Eyecandytards

Less update? No! (1)

Dunge (922521) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113362)

We need constant updates, not people stagnating with old versions.

Enterprise? (1)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113440)

What does "enterprise" mean in this context?

Re:Enterprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113572)

That ship thingy that Picard says "engage" a lot while chillaxin on the bridge of.

Re:Enterprise? (1)

siride (974284) | more than 2 years ago | (#37114344)

Holy stranded preposition, Batman! I didn't even think you could a noun out from two clauses deep, but there it is.

Re:Enterprise? (2)

BillX (307153) | more than 2 years ago | (#37114674)

NCC-1701-D [wikipedia.org] ?
(i.e, Life support: When you just can't afford to turn it off and then on again.)

Stable = Older (2)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37113688)

By definition a stable system has to be running older code that's been fixed and is well understood rather then "the latest" updated code.

If your constantly churning and updating you can not be stable.

Red Had run's behind the main Linux distribution to get added stability.

But FreeBSD which seems old and stodgy is like that because of the emphasis on stability over features and improvement.
It's also simpler under the hood which is also important for Stability.

But it all depends on what your trying to do. GUI vs. Server.
For Server I'd go with BSD.
For GUI I'd go with Windows, Apple OS-X (BSD variant), maybe Android (haven't developed on it yet) X Windows just sucks.
For Embedded , I'd go with what ever the eval boards ship with. Usually Linux these days. (Certainly not PSOS or QNIX)

At this point I can compile the same code on all of these using GCC and run them equally well. They are all Posix compliant. SDL run's on all of them.
Java also run on them. So does Flash, LLVM, TCL, PERL, RUBY, Python or what ever langue du jour.

Let's end the religious wars on OS's, it's about getting your work done. The OS is just a platform for the language your want your code to run on.

Re:Stable = Older (1)

NateTech (50881) | more than 2 years ago | (#37115598)

VxWorks or Microware OS/9 still kick Linux's butt in the RTOS world for reliability and strength/stability of codebase. Just sayin'... if you're building missile systems, you're probably reaching for one of those.

Re:Stable = Older (1)

John Sokol (109591) | more than 2 years ago | (#37115770)

Xvworks and microware, yuck.
I am a video specialist and love doing real time control stuff and embedded systems. I have yet to understand what they are talking about with RTOS. I can do microsecond accurate timing now in vanilla BSD or linux. Yes 1/1,000,000 second timing. Verifiable on an oscilloscope from user space or in drivers.

Overall I think the opensource is the important part of stability. The more eyeballs looking at code the more solid it will be.
This is why new code should be treated with some suspicion till it has been run for so long in so many different condition. Been reviewed and scrutinized over and over. This is what gives stability.

How to make Linux stable (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37113690)

1) insert Windows install disk
2) c: format
3) run win7.exe
4) PROFIT!!!!

Re:How to make Linux stable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37114428)

Clearly you haven't got a clue how to install DOS or Windows....*sigh*

Who the HELL are you?!? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37114884)

I'm the dude who envisioned, designed, developed and shipped both autoexec.bat and Clippy, so clearly I know my shit. What the hell have YOU ever done? You know what, I don't have time for your jibber jabber, I have to finish the bootware for the Kin 3. It's gonna be the iPhone killer.

Re:How to make Linux stable (1)

moco (222985) | more than 2 years ago | (#37115014)

The old "increasing your IQ by giving yourself a lobotomy" argument... I am not impressed.

big animation companies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37114114)

I work in the animation industry. And they back-port more stable kernels. At some companies they even have there own custom kernel. Not usual since companies tend to use high-end graphics and have XFS/NFS, and several other protocols to handle.

I suggest a DESKTOP version of the kernel. Much of the kernel patches all seem to be related to super computing and/or server problems that desktop users never deal with. What I mean is, its near impossible to run a background process without it somehow slowing down a foreground process. Try running firefox with several tabs, and thunderbird all day. Even idele firefox is taking up tons of CPU usage. I know this is a firefox thing. However, shouldn't the kernel be able to adapt to processes requiring more cpu. If all processors are running 100%, I should still have some level of control to kill that process (even if its swapping my machine). Since before I can remember. If a process is taking 100% of all my cpu's and nearing swap limits, the kernel decides what processes to kill off rather than throttling the one causing the problem. I would like more time spent on day-day performance with the scheduler. And of course patching security problems when they arise.

Re:big animation companies (1)

siride (974284) | more than 2 years ago | (#37114372)

I usually have this problem more on Windows than on Linux. I'd says 95% of the time it's not really high CPU-usage, but disk or other device activity that grinds everything to a halt.

2 years isn't a lot (3, Interesting)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#37114122)

Debian security support stands for more than 2 years. So if you say "more than 2 years", I'd say, that's what we get with any Debian release. So I hope that the plan is to have it for longer, otherwise it's YASM (Yet Another Suse Marketing...). There's all signs that 2.6.32 will be maintained for a long long, very long, extremely long time, since so many distro are using it.

Re:2 years isn't a lot (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37115666)

2 years for the kernel is already a start. That way not each distro needs to do the security patching on their own, but rather share the effort.

And a stable API, anytime? (3, Insightful)

renzhi (2216300) | more than 2 years ago | (#37114272)

Linux could have dominated, if there was some sort of stable API for third-party developers. Developing for the Linux platform quickly becomes an experience of insanity, when you start doing compatibility test, and the test matrix just explodes.

I'd say, if it was too hard to keep API stable across all versions of Linux, maybe we should at least have API stable for all minor versions, say, 2.6.x?

I know all the arguments for moving faster, for keeping a cleaner code base, etc. But hell, what good is a shiny kernel if the apps can't keep up with?

Just venting, from my experiences working with kernel module.

Real-time Kernel Patches Synchronisation? (4, Interesting)

highways (1382025) | more than 2 years ago | (#37114398)

If the target for a long-term stable kernel is embedded systems, then I would suggest having some sort of arrangement with the real-time kernel patches [kernel.org] which typically don't release with every kernel.

If, for example, 2.6.39 was chosen as a -longterm, it's unattractive for many embedded developers without the option of the -rt.

Um, thats pretty much what RHEL does! (0)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 2 years ago | (#37114684)

This is pretty much one of the 2 major services Redhat offers(the other is support). They pretty much backport all security fixes(and most bug fixes as well) while leaving everything else as stable as possible. That way you can continue to run your machines without worrying about some new whiz bang update breaking everything.

What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37115140)

Any project that considers two years to be "longterm" is very ill indeed. Still addicted to the shiny, are we?

Stable is stable enough: more stable is... (1)

GrandTeddyBearOfDoom (1483117) | more than 2 years ago | (#37115498)

Once a kernel is reasonably stable you should work elsewhere. Trying to still a floating boat will not make it float any better. The boat floats.

Wasn't this started long ago? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37115866)

I remember ...years ago... that Linus and Friends at the OSDL were working on carrier grade Linux ....to provide the kind of stability and reliability (moving from 5 9's to 9 9's, or 1 second of downtime every 31.688 years on average. Is this just an extension of that? I also remember Cray et. el. were working on making Linux more fault tolerant, less fragile, (SGI did a bit too, likewise Oracle with databases, etc.).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>