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 3.5 Released

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the thanks-linus dept.

Open Source 277

diegocg writes "Linux 3.5 has been released. New features include support for metadata checksums in Ext4, userspace probes for performance profiling with systemtap/perf, a simple sandboxing mechanism that can filter syscalls, a new network queue management algorithm designed to fight bufferbloat, support for checkpointing and restoring TCP connections, support for TCP Early Retransmit (RFC 5827), support for android-style opportunistic suspend, btrfs I/O failure statistics, and SCSI over Firewire and USB. Here's the full changelog."

cancel ×

277 comments

Linux is not (-1)

iozozturk (2005838) | about 2 years ago | (#40726493)

Linus.

Ha ha he he (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40726535)

It's funny. The Linux community put so much effort into trying to win the OS of the Desktop with so little success, but secretly won the battle of the OS on phones and tablets with hardly a fanboy.

Re:Ha ha he he (5, Insightful)

Teresita (982888) | about 2 years ago | (#40726615)

Desktops were locked down under the Microsoft Tax, Linux never had a chance. Along comes another platform, and it was Microsoft left flapping in the wind.

Re:Ha ha he he (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#40726703)

Desktops were locked down under the Microsoft Tax, Linux never had a chance. Along comes another platform, and it was Microsoft left flapping in the wind.

As usual it was Apple coming in doing something people have done before, only much better. I remember Microsoft tablets, there's no doubt they were first - and unusable. It was just like a PC, except with a stylus instead of a keyboard which we all know is so efficient. Lately I've been a bit surprised though because Apple has taken real technological leadership in some areas, like the display on the iPad 3 and the retina MBP. Things where you can truly say that there hasn't been anything like that offered ever before. Makes me both want to love their gear and hate their walled in garden.

Re:Ha ha he he (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40726951)

The display in the Macbook Pro isn't produced by Apple.

Re:Ha ha he he (3, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about 2 years ago | (#40727051)

Yes, but Apple has the power to choose the components, which makes a difference to what we see on the marketplace.

Re:Ha ha he he (4, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | about 2 years ago | (#40727151)

There are three parts to retina graphics. 1. Is the hardware. Apple doesn't manufacture it, but they do select it. 2. Is the Operating system. The physical pixels double but the virtual pixels stay the same and the OS displays double-sized (@2x) images if available or pixel-doubles existing image (and they look like a bag of ass). 3. is the software -- it needs to provide double-sized (@2x) images.

Samsung or Dell can use a high-DPI screen but they're limited on OS modifications and convincing third party software to support it. Maybe android is better about scalable graphics, but Apple still has the advantage of synchronizing the hardware and software.

Re:Ha ha he he (5, Interesting)

ZosX (517789) | about 2 years ago | (#40727317)

Android scales graphis just fine IMO. if you run something like an older game that was designed for a lower dpi device, it just scales it. Generally you have the option to allow it to run smaller in its native resolution as well. Many of the android games use vectors for sprites, so asides from backgrounds looking pixelated, the sprites generally look pretty decent. I dunno, I went from a phone with an 800x480 display to a tablet with a 1280x800 display. If you ask me, android, at least ICS and beyond, handles high resolutions very well. It will scale the UI to match the dpi of the phone. I don't think apple has any real advantage here.

Re:Ha ha he he (2, Informative)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#40727405)

Android not only supports different resolutions but also different aspect ratios. There is a reason why Apple keeps selecting the same aspect ratio over and over again...

Re:Ha ha he he (2)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#40727337)

increasing display resolution by itself isn't new technology, nor is it apple specific. personally i'd prefer having more desktop space, but I guess most people are too blind to handle anything 'virtually' larger than 1440x900..

Apple's lack of support for Retina Displays (2)

billstewart (78916) | about 2 years ago | (#40727461)

Matt Blaze tweeted that Apple doesn't support the full resolution of the Retina display on the MacBook - the most you can set is 1920x1200, and it scales it from there. He also reports that there's a workaround [9to5mac.com] which will let you get the full resolution.

But still, SRSLY? You'd think Apple could get font scaling correct, especially since they've been selling big desktop displays for years.

Re:Apple's lack of support for Retina Displays (4, Interesting)

Hawke (1719) | about 2 years ago | (#40727601)

Kinda off subject here, but ...

Your standard app was not written for silly-high DPR. You could show this on linux too: take your desktop, and crank the DPI to 300 or so, so that the X server thinks your screen is only 5" across. Now move far enough away from it that a 12 point font looks reasonable, and then look at how stupid apps look. Icons are microscopic (because they're defined in fixed pixel sizes). Layouts between menubars and borders look stupid (natural spacing was defined in fixed pixel sizes).

So Apple's approach here is to tell the application that the screen is 1440x900. Any primitives that can be scaled ("place the string 'pants' in font 'Helvitica', size 12pt, at X,Y". "Draw this 2kx2k pixmap in this 500px x 500px space") are then rendered to the screen's native resolution. Things that can't be scaled aren't ("draw this 96x96 pixmap here, in this 96x96 space"). Some apps then look horrible, some look great.

I personally would have rather they just let apps look like crap, and told people to fix their darn apps, but I can understand why they didn't.

Re:Ha ha he he (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727159)

As usual Apple came much, much later than others and thus could use newer technology.
Funny how times have changed. Apple was utter shit back in the early days of personal computing when it took more than a rounded rectangle to be innovative.
Praising Apple like they've revolutionized anything is a slap in the face of those who actually did pioneer.

Re:Ha ha he he (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#40727327)

and if you buy that gear, you support their garden of eden. knowledge is verboten.

Look better (0)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | about 2 years ago | (#40727369)

As usual it was Apple coming in doing something people have done before, only much better.

Apple's implementations "look" better than the competition. It's kind of like having a beauty contest where the winner isn't the brainiest but the cutest kid on the ramp. Example: the lack of a built-in hardware keyboard on the iPhone.

Re:Ha ha he he (3, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40726713)

Linux would still have failed if it had not been backed by google. Right now we'd all be discussing Apple iOS and Microsoft's Windows Phone, plus some ubuntu-derived distribution that only the engineers know how to install on their phone.

BUT along comes Google and they used their resources to make Android Linux a success, by selling direct to manufacturers. Now we just need Google to consider porting Android to AMD/Intel desktops.

Re:Ha ha he he (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40726867)

Now we just need Google to consider porting Android to AMD/Intel desktops.

Why? To have a Linux competitor to Windows 8?

There are plenty of Linux distros to fill just about everyone's needs.

What I would really like to see is someone do something about the mono-kernal.

Re:Ha ha he he (2)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#40727007)

Now we just need Google to consider porting Android to AMD/Intel desktops.

Android runs fine on x86. You can even download it and compile it yourself, if you're into that kind of BSDM.

Re:Ha ha he he (1)

ZosX (517789) | about 2 years ago | (#40727325)

yeah, but will all the arm optimized apps that run native code work? android on mips faces the same problem.

Re:Ha ha he he (1)

siddesu (698447) | about 2 years ago | (#40727465)

All apps I've tried worked okay. Even hardware extras like bluetooth and USB storage get recognized without any problems. Maybe I simply haven't hit any apps that use native libraries, but then I think very few do.

Re:Ha ha he he (1)

grouchomarxist (127479) | about 2 years ago | (#40727569)

No, they have to be rebuilt for Intel.

Re:Ha ha he he (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727085)

Google would have failed if it had not been for Linux.

Re:Ha ha he he (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727189)

BSD would have taken its place.

Re:Ha ha he he (1, Insightful)

John Bokma (834313) | about 2 years ago | (#40727295)

Yeah, and the interwebz too, right? I really don't understand those "what ifs". There's no way to prove if you're right or wrong. It's more a religion thing that anything else.

Re:Ha ha he he (1, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#40727627)

Thank you. Religion. The same people who scoff at Christians, Jews, and Muslims for believing in a God, are blind to the fact that they are zealots of another sort. Thank you.

Re:Ha ha he he (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727213)

Google would still have failed if it had not leveraged Linux. Right now we'd all be discussing how Microsoft killed off a small startup that couldn't pay the licensing fee for Windows server, plus some Mac-hosted search engine that was only useable to those who could afford it.

  BUT along comes Stallman, Linus, Linux, OpenBSD enthusiasts and a whole cadre of hobbyists, engineers and others contributing to a powerful platform enabling all kinds of experiments to go mainstream and develop into hugely popular and successful companies and projects.

Now we just need software patents to be invalidated and let the natural competition and drive of the market to resume it's aggressive buildup of new software technology.

Re:Ha ha he he (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#40727247)

Of course, IOS would have failed were it not backed by a big pile of corporate cash as well.

Re:Ha ha he he (2)

grouchomarxist (127479) | about 2 years ago | (#40727561)

Android already runs on Intel, but it would take some work to make the UI work properly for the desktop.

However, at this point Google is more interested in making Chrome OS the desktop OS.

Re:Ha ha he he (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#40727623)

You have one way of looking at it. Some of us have another view of the matter.

Anyone who does NOT want to rely on Mac or Microsoft, is going to choose - what, exactly? There are several Unix-likes out there, so Linux isn't a shoe-in. What is it about Linux, that made Google choose it over any other Unix-likes?

My money is on the pervasive GPL. The GPL fits Google's agenda better than any other licensing scheme, and that's pretty much the end of that story.

Desktops were also locked down under (1)

Burz (138833) | about 2 years ago | (#40726885)

the politics of old school Unix hackers. It is the kind of politics that keeps distros from really standardizing on a GUI, and also results in oddities like the Linux Foundation having an SDK for mobile, but none for desktop. Likewise, Android has an SDK but Ubuntu (and all the other desktop distros) do not.

Re:Desktops were also locked down under (1)

MrHanky (141717) | about 2 years ago | (#40726973)

It's got nothing to do with politics, people with different preferences just happen to build different things.

Re:Desktops were also locked down under (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727017)

That is fundamentally what politics is about: getting people who want different things to act together in a useful way.

Re:Desktops were also locked down under (4, Insightful)

Burz (138833) | about 2 years ago | (#40727731)

It's got nothing to do with politics, people with different preferences just happen to build different things.

Politics are about group preferences and group identity. It's got a heck of a lot to do with politics: There's no rational reason to offer standardized frameworks under an SDK for mobile, but avoid doing so for desktops. One of the irrational reasons behind the disparity is that the hacker and sysadmin culture view PCs as immediate kin to web servers hardware and regard any standardization or vertical integration in the stack that caters primarily to "luser" needs as a threat to their freedom and efficiency.

The overall 'distro' mindset causes each and every initiative to become hamstrung with idiotic assumptions, such as:

- Each application should be broken down into between 2 - 20 different pieces and scattered around one's hard drive.

- Changes for most system components are handled in exactly the same way and with the same priorities as high-level applications, and apps get to make dependency demands on the inner workings of the system. There is no clear distinction between system and apps for anything being updated, added or removed.

- Anything other than the kernel = "application", and this type of system-hacker nomenclature must be observed by everyone or they will be ridiculed as 'n00b'. The result is a kind of blindness to real issues that arise around interactions between apps and system.

- System coders > App coders, so we will just get Miguel and some of the ol' gang to whip up some applications that will put Microsoft and Adobe to shame (i.e. we'll draw from the pool of Linux system enthusiasts to write user-facing apps instead of creating a feature-stable environment with an SDK to attract both newbies, and experienced app coders who are only newbie to 'our' system). But the reality is that the particular hacker culture and general feature-instability act as a corrosive acid against the kind of userbase and developer community that a personal computer needs.

- More than 10 people like to manage their PC software within a paradigm designed for servers.

- Fewer GUI admin tools are better b/c people will just want to hit the CLI anyway. Avoid the GUI when describing solutions, even WRT office/productivity if possible.

- A myriad different admin tools for basic network connectivity are OK because people want 'choice' (esp. when they call up tech support for their ISP or application and the technician can't figure out what specific steps to tell the user).

- Each year, desktop users must learn to recognize "Linux" by the current and past iterations of the 4 or 5 desktop environments that are officially supported by each distro.

- App developers like to design their apps for a disembodied desktop environment, instead of viewing the OS layers underneath as equally accessible tools. They also like testing their app in several other desktop environments to ensure that it "plays well" with them.

- App devs love having to test and package on multiple distros, and they look forward to having many camps of distro maintainers telling them about app "bugs" that mean you have to help them fix the same issue in their systems over and over again for a number of years. They also love having maintainers pepper and berate them over wacky compile switches, setting defaults, patches, etc. and they way they like to refer to app devs as "upstream" instead of "author", as if "Linux" coding automatically entailed some sort of demotion.

- If one is an ISV (distributing a proprietary app as 3rd party), devs love being regarded as an oddball instead of the norm, and love being reminded constantly that so many of the compatibility issues with (untargetted) distros they keep having to read about could be automatically resolved if, gosh, the author would only release their app as open source so they could be merged with repository nirvana.

- App devs love hearing they should leave behind all the PC stuff and code their idea in (the totally inappropriate) LAMP.

- Users love hearing they are looking in the wrong place for apps: If it isn't on the web it isn't worth using.

- Users must learn that the most important part of an app's description is a rundown of the framework, DE and possibly the compiler options that the app uses, so the user can have a shot at keeping their desktop efficient and free of code from rival gangs. :) Actual app features are secondary or often not worth mentioning at all.

- A desktop platform can be created without observing most of the platform-methodology of the established desktop market.

- Its good to get people interested in "Linux" desktops by inculcating the expectation that your fav-distro-of-the-month is so good with drivers and autoconfiguration that it could run on just about any hardware without hassle. When they run into hardware hassles, just keep pumping them with personal anecdotes about how "it works for me- what did you do wrong?" Extra points if you got them to melt their Macbook Pro's CPU with Fedora and helped them sell the resulting heap on eBay for parts.

- Have the user create a list of chipsets on their motherboard and then comb through hardware compatibility lists that are 3 years out of date to see if their system is a good match for "Linux". Then ask them what they did wrong when their distro configures the rear and center channels to their stereo audio output.

- Its fine to have the user choose between 4 different audio stacks when setting up their app. When helping them with their decision, treat any references to I/O blocking as impractical digressions and ignore the subject until the user gets angry. When they do get angry because their appointments and incoming phone calls were missed while listening to music, tell them to "stop trying to copy Windows".

- Whenever boring, tedious-to-implement features and business disciplines are brought up, accuse the other person(s) of trying to turn Linux into Windows. When in doubt about the speaker's point, make this accusation anyway.

These maladies are the main reason why "desktop Linux" didn't succeed. Microsoft's underhandedness was just tweaking around the edges.

What do you mean? (4, Informative)

billstewart (78916) | about 2 years ago | (#40727507)

Back when I was running X Windows versions 10.x and early 11s, there was no requirement that I use TWM. And while the Sun 2 came with SunView, the Sun 3 could run either SunView or X, and you could get Grasshopper Group's implementation of NeWS if you preferred, which drove your screen in Postscript. Among other things, that meant that if you wanted to change the font size to match the size of your monitor and your eyesight, you just did it, and What You Saw Was What You Wanted. None of this "need a third-party developer's hack to use the full resolution of the expensive Retina Display you just bought" nonsense. But even if you were running X, you weren't limited to Motif or OpenLook; you could run whatever window manager you liked with it.

As far as "Ubuntu [does] not [have an SDK]" goes, you can use the Gnome SDK or KDE or LXDE or several other fairly full-featured SDKs.

Re:Ha ha he he (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727281)

Desktops were locked down under the Microsoft Tax, Linux never had a chance. Along comes another platform, and it was Microsoft left flapping in the wind.

We still haven't gotten rid of the Microsoft tax. We are seeing a lot of patent licenses from Microsoft for folks running android:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2011/10/microsoft-collects-license-fees-on-50-of-android-devices-tells-google-to-wake-up/

According to charts in the blog post, 55 percent of Android devices by worldwide revenue are subject to patent license agreements between Microsoft and original design manufacturers, such as Compal. Moreover, 53 percent of Android smartphones by unit share in the United States are subject to patent license agreements between Microsoft and original equipment manufacturers, such as Samsung and HTC.

Re:Ha ha he he (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 2 years ago | (#40727311)

I think Microsoft to a certain extent left themselves flapping in the wind, by pursuing late, and insisting on pushing a desktop paradigm on other devices even when it's apparent that it wasn't a good fit. They seemed to think that "it's Windows" was a good enough selling point that it didn't have to be useable. And that allowed other approaches to run away with the market. Even with Windows 8, they're still insisting on the same interface everywhere, this time, it appears, by dumbing down the desktop, in the interest of uniformity, to something that works on a smaller touch device.

Re:Ha ha he he (1)

Tough Love (215404) | about 2 years ago | (#40727621)

Desktops were locked down under the Microsoft Tax, Linux never had a chance. Along comes another platform, and it was Microsoft left flapping in the wind.

Proving conclusively that the only thing keeping Microsoft in business is their illegal market control of PC makers. Which is showing signs of cracking. Dell is offering Ubuntu preloaded again, this time on ultrabooks. The last half dozen machines I have bought all came with Linux preloaded from various vendors, and in no case was a Microsoft tax paid on any of them.

shenanigans, shenanigans! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727821)

PC desktops have never been "locked down". You could always modify the software and hardware as much as you want. There are not very many phones for which that statement is true. No, hacking the hardware you bought (jailbreaking) does not count. In fact, look at the other non-wintel desktops. Apple restricts what can be done and unix workstations often simply had little other compatible options than the original OS. You couldn't be more wrong about wintel PCs being "locked down". Their openness is really the whole reason they were successful.

Re:Ha ha he he (1)

mikael_j (106439) | about 2 years ago | (#40726711)

There are plenty of Linux "on phones and tablets" fanboys. They are sometimes derisively called "fandroids". And some of them are quite obnoxious...

Re:Ha ha he he (2, Funny)

TwinkieStix (571736) | about 2 years ago | (#40726777)

A group of people inside of a sub group of a subgroup are quite obnoxious. Sounds like some Slashdot commenters. Wait.

Re:Ha ha he he (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40726871)

There are plenty of Linux "on phones and tablets" fanboys. They are sometimes derisively called "fandroids". And some of them are quite obnoxious...

Unlike the equally of not more obnoxious Apple fanbois. They are sometimes called "homosexuals".

Re:Ha ha he he (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727091)

got your feelings hurt?

Re:Ha ha he he (-1, Flamebait)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about 2 years ago | (#40726931)

Linux has not won any kind of OS battle, much less on phones or tablets.

iOS (which is BSD based) runs the majority of phones and tablets in use, while Android has the majority of the rest.

While it's true that Android phones tend to use a Linux kernel, that's not really a requirement. It's just convenient. Android could run on any kernel. BSD, Windows, Hurd, whatever.. And all Android apps would continue to function.

Android is the OS, not Linux. Linux is just the current kernel, and has absolutely no bearing on Android as a platform.

Re:Ha ha he he (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727053)

iOS (which is BSD based) runs the majority of phones and tablets in use, while Android has the majority of the rest.

Citation? I smell an Apple fanboy.

http://fortunebrainstormtech.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/screen-shot-2011-06-21-at-6-28-47-am.png [wordpress.com]

Android continues to lead the smartphone market in the U.S., with a majority of smartphone owners (51.8%) using an Android OS handset.

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/?p=32494 [nielsen.com]

For tablets, Apple has a lead, but the numbers are quite low for total number of devices.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/26/android-reaches-39-tablet-os-market-share-standing-on-amazons-shoulders/ [techcrunch.com]

So overall, Android is king in marketshare. Not sure how you got "apple runs majority of phones and tablets". Maybe "only tablets, for now, because of headstart".

Re:Ha ha he he (4, Insightful)

zixxt (1547061) | about 2 years ago | (#40727089)

Linux has not won any kind of OS battle, much less on phones or tablets.

Linux is the Major OS of Servers, Super Computers, Television Sets, the God Particle

iOS (which is BSD based) runs the majority of phones and tablets in use, while Android has the majority of the rest.

Tablets yes, Phones not even close!

While it's true that Android phones tend to use a Linux kernel, that's not really a requirement. It's just convenient. Android could run on any kernel. BSD, Windows, Hurd, whatever.. And all Android apps would continue to function.

Android is the OS, not Linux. Linux is just the current kernel, and has absolutely no bearing on Android as a platform.

If Android can run on these other kernels as you say then why is not being done? Android outside of Linux is released under a permissive license, if any other kernels could do the Job Linux does I'm petty sure Google would of chose it, but alas no other kernel is up to snuff.

Re:Ha ha he he (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727143)

iOS (which is BSD based) runs the majority of phones and tablets in use.

Wrong.

On phones, Android currently has the largest percentage, having overtaken Symbian for the lead in early 2011. It has had twice as much share as iOS since late 2010 having overtaken it in early 2010. (Refer to Gartner and IDC figures for sales and shipments). Android currently sits in the 55-60% range with iOS in the 20-25% range.

For tablets, yes iOS leads with about 60% with Android just under 40%; however, noting that there are more smartphones in use than tablets and combining tablet with phone use percentages, iOS most certainly does NOT "run the majority of phones and tablets in use".

Android on tablets did not start strong; however, I fully expect Android tablet use to overtake iOS tablet use as well.

Re:Ha ha he he (5, Informative)

El_Oscuro (1022477) | about 2 years ago | (#40726955)

Also on ereaders. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , almost all of the major brands run Linux.

Should call it "lin-FAIL-ux" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727201)

> secretly won the battle of the OS on phones and tablets

LOL. Dream on, zealot. Apple has DEMOLISHED Lin-sux across the board. Yeah lame-droid sells a lot of phones and tablets to people who have never had one before, but they *INEVITABLY* end up switching to an iPhone or an iPad once they get a taste of the ridiculus fragmentation and the bug and virus ridden app market run by google, designed primarily to steal your personal information and sell it to the highest bidders. Just look at this supposed iPad killed the "Nexus 7". They shipped broken, full of bugs in a new version of lame-droid and even the touch screen doesn't work properly. What a fiasco, one that only a lame zealot apologist like YOU would claim is somehow making Lin-sux win.

Face it, losers, linsux, lamedroid and all the rest of your open sores crap has FAILED and FAILED big time. Why not just admit that Apple has beaten you all badly using their superior engineering, superior coding, superior construction and superior CUSTOMERS?Just suck it up and move on instead of drawing out the pain and embarassment for yourselves.

Think different.
Think BETTER.
Think Apple!

When will Ubuntu support Linux 3.5? (1)

billstewart (78916) | about 2 years ago | (#40727543)

Any ideas when Ubuntu will support the 3.5 kernel? Real Soon, or not until 12.10?

Re:Ha ha he he (1)

elashish14 (1302231) | about 2 years ago | (#40727613)

Yes, I agree... our Android vs iOS discussions are impressively civil!

android-style opportunistic suspend (3, Interesting)

twistedcubic (577194) | about 2 years ago | (#40726549)

Now this looks interesting. Hopefully it works as described on the net (http://lwn.net/Articles/479841/). Automatic suspend would be wonderful.

Re:android-style opportunistic suspend (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40726603)

You suck faggot dicks.

minor typo - "makes impossibles" (1)

richlv (778496) | about 2 years ago | (#40726553)

even though i'm logged in, kernelnewbies page says "Immutable Page" - so maybe somebody with write privs can fix "makes impossibles" ;)

Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles" (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#40726573)

I'll have a word with Sergei.

Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles" (5, Interesting)

macemoneta (154740) | about 2 years ago | (#40726689)

Btrfs is stable enough for real data, if you run current releases (latest 3.4 or 3.5 kernel and btrfs-progs-19 current). I use it in both single drive systems and raid1 configurations with Fedora 17. Prior to converting the systems, I ran extensive failure testing (e.g., pulling power / data connection during active writes, system crashes, using a failing drive with media errors as part of a raid1, etc.) for about a month. I never lost a single byte of data in any test, confirmed by checksum scans on all data (against a backup) after each test cycle.

I actually trust btrfs now more than ext4 due to the ability to scrub the data and confirm integrity, which I do daily or weekly depending on the system.

Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles" (0)

macemoneta (154740) | about 2 years ago | (#40726701)

Crap, replied to the wrong thread.

Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles" (4, Funny)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#40727263)

So you're saying an orphaned inode ended up referenced by the wrong directory entry?

Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles" (1)

macemoneta (154740) | about 2 years ago | (#40727321)

No, just that I shouldn't try to respond to posts from inside the little box in my feed reader.

Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles" (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | about 2 years ago | (#40726721)

wow. I'm still using 2.6.37 (OpenSuSE 11.4 vm image). What can I say, it ain't broke so I've never bothered fixing it :)

Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles" (2)

macemoneta (154740) | about 2 years ago | (#40726773)

It depends on your definition of 'broke'. You don't have any of the functionality in the newer kernels (tens of thousands of patches to current), so if you want to use any of that it certainly is 'broke'. :)

Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles" (1)

bzipitidoo (647217) | about 2 years ago | (#40726729)

What about performance? I tried btrfs on an older machine (Pentium 3), a few kernels ago, before the recent big performance improvements. Firefox didn't do so well on a btrfs partition. It was the second biggest CPU hog, after the btrfs processes. Switching back to ext4 was a big improvement.

Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles" (4, Informative)

macemoneta (154740) | about 2 years ago | (#40726827)

With the current implementation and just the 'autodefrag' option added to default, there is no perceptable difference in performance compared to ext4 for any of our machines, with any application. Recent testing at Phoronix (with 3.4) has btrfs getting closer to ext4 (running without lvm2 and md raid); I'm curious to see how its numbers look in 3.5. However, because btrfs integrates the functionality of lvm2 and md raid in a much more usable manner, as well as providing much more functionality, a small performance tradeoff would be acceptable (to me).

Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727399)

With the current implementation and just the 'autodefrag' option added to default, there is no perceptable difference in performance compared to ext4 for any of our machines, with any application.

Are the nightmarish performance issues with anything that issues lots of fsyncs, like dpkg, finally solved?

Re:minor typo - "makes impossibles" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727095)

nah - i'd talk to Wladimir if i were you.

Ext4 metadata checksums (4, Interesting)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about 2 years ago | (#40726575)

Ext4 metadata checksums. I like that. Note that it isn't data CRC checksums, just metadata. Still, I like the way Ext4 keeps evolving and getting tuned. Btrfs sounds really great, but it may still be some time before it is stable enough for my data storage needs.

Re:Ext4 metadata checksums (4, Informative)

macemoneta (154740) | about 2 years ago | (#40726697)

I accidentally replied to the wrong thread. Repost:

Btrfs is stable enough for real data, if you run current releases (latest 3.4 or 3.5 kernel and btrfs-progs-19 current). I use it in both single drive systems and raid1 configurations with Fedora 17. Prior to converting the systems, I ran extensive failure testing (e.g., pulling power / data connection during active writes, system crashes, using a failing drive with media errors as part of a raid1, etc.) for about a month. I never lost a single byte of data in any test, confirmed by checksum scans on all data (against a backup) after each test cycle.

I actually trust btrfs now more than ext4 due to the ability to scrub the data and confirm integrity, which I do daily or weekly depending on the system.

Re:Ext4 metadata checksums (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40726921)

Btrfs may be stable in the sense that it currently works, but it isn't stable as far as development is concerned. Neither is ext4, apparently. Personally I feel more comfortable using file systems which are experiencing a minimum of change. I'd rather see the Linux developers start a new branch of the ext tree for new features and call it ext5, rather than tacking more niffty things onto ext4.

Re:Ext4 metadata checksums (2)

dAzED1 (33635) | about 2 years ago | (#40726965)

I've been in a couple Fedora FUDs, and I'm running Fed17 while typing in this little box thing to reply to you. That said...."real data" isn't stored on a box running Fedora. Sorry. I mean that with lots of love to the entire Fedora community (well...most of it...) but...I'm pretty sure most of the community wouldn't claim it's a production server OS anyway.

Re:Ext4 metadata checksums (2)

macemoneta (154740) | about 2 years ago | (#40727025)

You may be surprised to learn that the definition of 'production' is very much locally defined. To some companies I've dealt with, ancient stable software that gets no maintenance for years is the way to go. To others, driving the leading edge means competitive advantage. Most fall somewhere in the middle.

Re:Ext4 metadata checksums (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727035)

I don't think the parent poster was saying people should use Fedora for production. He just stated that his tests of Btrfs were done on a Fedora box. You can run Btrfs on plenty of other distributions. Heck, I don't think Fedora 17 even supports Btrfs at install time, it needs to be added later. Other distros would make testing and using Btrfs easier.

Linux-libre is the real deal (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40726691)

Linux, the kernel developed and distributed by Linus Torvalds et al, contains software that is included without source code, with obfuscated or obscured source code and code under non-Free Software licenses. Linux-libre removes these parts.

http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/linux-libre/ [fsfla.org]

Re:Linux-libre is the real deal (1)

Teresita (982888) | about 2 years ago | (#40727019)

A GNU/Linux kernel that is libre, there's a redundancy if I ever heard one. Like Sun Solar company.

Re:Linux-libre is the real deal (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727315)

When referring to the kernel, it's just Linux, not GNU/Linux.

Re:Linux-libre is the real deal (3, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#40727361)

GNU has nothing to do with the kernel at all. The LiGnuX and then later gnu/linux renaming suggestions were for entire systems that contained software written as part of gnu projects and not a totally different project such as the linux kernel. The gnu kernel is called hurd.
The point of the renaming was stated to be to "advertise" gnu on the back of a higher profile project, but personally I think it was just petty MIT staffroom politics that escaped out into the world. "But what have you done lately Mr Stallman" turned into pretended ownership of linux which certainly has the above poster and a pile of journalists fooled.

Yeah, you're right! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727665)

Yeah, the Linux kernel has nothing to do with GNU at all. Oh, except for the license which is the GNUv2 license. Oh, and that it is built with GCC and relies on GCC extensions (Gnu Compiler Collection). Oh, and that one of the reasons many corporations contributed to it and poured resources into it, as opposed to say BSD, was the license. Yeah, nothing to do with GNU whatsoever.

Even the FSF disagrees with you (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 2 years ago | (#40727833)

True, and it was an Intel chip, IBM PC, etc, etc, the list goes on through a lot of connections and will eventually involve Kevin Bacon. I think the connection is far too tenuous to name it after gnu and at least a few years ago the FSF agreed with me, suggesting calling linux the kernel and gnu/linux a distribution.

What drivers is Linux-libre missing? (2)

billstewart (78916) | about 2 years ago | (#40727535)

AFAICT, Linux-libre takes the standard Linux distribution and removes all software that doesn't have source code, most of which is device drivers, and also removes applications that don't have politically correct licenses. I'm not too worried about applications (apt-get easily fixes that), but I'd rather not load it on my hardware and find I don't have device drivers for the screen or the audio card or whatever. Does using Linux-Libre mean I can't use AMD graphics sets, or NVidia, or both? What about Intel chipsets?

Re:Linux-libre is the real deal (3, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 years ago | (#40727597)

Linux, the kernel developed and distributed by Linus Torvalds et al, contains software that is included without source code, with obfuscated or obscured source code and code under non-Free Software licenses. Linux-libre removes these parts.

http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/linux-libre/ [fsfla.org]

So, you're saying it is a lot, lot less functional, possibly even to the point of uselessness. Hmm. Doesn't sound like my cup of tea.

Bufferbloat (1)

ternarybit (1363339) | about 2 years ago | (#40726735)

...new network queue management algorithm designed to fight bufferbloat...

Does this feature work transparently and automatically, or does one need to enable it?

Re:Bufferbloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40726857)

More details to the CoDel network queue management http://gettys.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/a-milestone-reached-codel-is-in-linux/. Lets hope that the next generation of routers (most home routers are linux based and then some) make fq_codel the default. So far Codel is not default (if I understand correctly), because it is new.

Re:Bufferbloat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40726903)

Will this feature help with ADSL modems having their internal buffers overflowing when the data gets too much for the up or down channel bit rate?

checkpointing and restoring TCP connections (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about 2 years ago | (#40726923)

Anyone knowledgeable can tell me what is "checkpointing and restoring TCP connections"?

Re:checkpointing and restoring TCP connections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727015)

It re-connects your dropped connection when the lousy Linux drivers for the Broadcom cards drop you. Or, am I joking?

Re:checkpointing and restoring TCP connections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727273)

I can't tell honestly.

Re:checkpointing and restoring TCP connections (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727305)

It's a way of transferring TCP connections to another server (along with transferring the IP address). That way, you could do hardware maintenance on the physical machine without losing anything because you've migrated it seamlessly to another machine. Of course, you have to transfer and restore everything else over too (running processes, memory, etc).

Re:checkpointing and restoring TCP connections (4, Informative)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#40727383)

It's part of the larger project for process/system checkpointing in general.

That is, saving the entire state of a process to storage such that it can start up again where it left off and not know the difference.

Re:checkpointing and restoring TCP connections (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727549)

http://criu.org/TCP_connection

BTRFS (1)

dnaumov (453672) | about 2 years ago | (#40727029)

So, is this thing finally usable in production or is everybody who actually cares about data still stuck with ZFS?

Re:BTRFS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727099)

So, is this thing finally usable in production or is everybody who actually cares about data still stuck with ZFS?

Data is safe with btrfs, but I'm still stuck with ZFS due to the lack of a raidz equivalent.

Re:BTRFS (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about 2 years ago | (#40727235)

I'll be using ZFS myself. I don't know what kind of trade-offs it would entail, but I would like to have something like the Win8 StoragePool where the software raid sits on-top of the pool instead of underneath it. Assuming it's not a huge trade off, the idea of "slabs" sounds good in theory.

I'm glad BTRFS is still getting love. Otherwise ZFS seems to be the only option in town for large manageable storage.

Re:BTRFS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727219)

Gotta love ZFS worshipping retards. Are you seriously claiming, for example, that the LHC folks don't care about their data? How about google? Or Facebook? Or IBM or any of the other thousands groups that use Linux to manage huge amounts of data without ZFS?

Re:BTRFS (2)

Bengie (1121981) | about 2 years ago | (#40727455)

They use clustered file systems which have nothing to do with EXT/BTRFS/ZFS. If you're looking for a easy to manage, resilient, local filesystem, ZFS is about the only game in town.

Congratulations "Penguins & crew" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727067)

I'm impressed... no really (even though I am a known "Windows fanboy" around here): I've tried KUbuntu 12.04 recently, & am impressed, but moreso w/ the Linux kernel circa 3.3 onwards (no known security issues I am aware of at least - not even LOCALLY exploitable ones, & that's pretty damned good, unless others here can show me otherwise to correct me with more current information...).

* Thus, I only expect Linux to continue to excel based on that foundation...

APK

P.S.=> I've said it here before here on /., & I might as well again now too:

Linux is proof that the people of the world CAN & do work well together to produce something pretty cool of their own freely given time & effort... without having the "taskmaster's whip" applied to their back (in other words, for work alone to support their families but not really because it'd be what they'd want to do or be doing possibly - just a means to the ultimate end, supporting you & yours).

Linux = what I call a "socio-technological phenomenon" & proof that humanity has good going for it (even though I am convinced the world's messed up large overall)... apk

That sounds uncomfortable. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727135)

The last time I had my userspace probed, I was left with a huge bill and my ass hurt for a week.

torvalds has some serious issues. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727161)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MShbP3OpASA#t=2997s [youtube.com]

that man has some serious issues. first his run-in with suse. now this.

using such language shows a lack of vocabulary to express your thoughts.

disgusting.

and what's worse is that the audience actually laughs about it. if you think talking like that is funny and acceptable. well - think again. it's not!

treat other people the way you want to be treated.

not that ballmer is any better throwing chairs.

maybe, just maybe, torvalds' behavior is the reason for nvidia to distance themselves.

Re:torvalds has some serious issues. (2, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 2 years ago | (#40727557)

some of us prefer blunt honesty over passive-aggressive politically correct doublespeak that dominates 'professional' interaction nowadays...those of us with spines, skin, and self-confidence anyway.

Re:torvalds has some serious issues. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727759)

one can be blunt and honest without having to resort to cursing.

spines, skin, and self-confidence

uh? what? cursing is supposed to show other people that you have self-confidence? quite the opposite.

in many parts of the world, showing your anger (and that includes cursing) will cause you to lose face and lose respect.

Linux 3.5 Released (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727195)

Truly this is a monumental day for faggots and neckbeards.

Yes but.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727385)

Did they bring back QIC support :)

Flame Wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40727525)

Let the flame wars begin! lolZ! Linux will never be an alternative for the desktop PC. The average computer user wants Windows!

Putting that aside, the TCP checkpoint could be pretty useful if you run a sever, It is probably similar to a kernal shadowing script but for all TCP/IP related stuff.
As far as the checksums for go, it will not do much unless most of your computer is primarily processing metadata.

As for the Core changes, they added a few useful things such as the: /proc//task//children entry if you are doing lots of restores.

The CMA thing is also kinda cool, as far as I know (which I wouldn't LOL) linux didnt have good memory allocation support :/

-- SnappleX

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...