Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Linux 3.10 Officially Released

timothy posted about a year ago | from the busy-weekend dept.

Open Source 157

hypnosec writes with word that "The Linux 3.10 kernel has been officially released on Sunday evening which makes the 3.10-rc7 the last release candidate of the latest kernel which yields the biggest changes in years. Linus Torvalds was thinking of releasing another rc but, went against the idea and went ahead with official Linux 3.10 commit as anticipated last week. Torvalds notes in the announcement that releases since Linux 3.9 haven't been prone to problems and 3.10 is no different."

cancel ×

157 comments

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

Pass (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150545)

I'll wait for 3.11

Re: Pass (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150597)

Linux for Workgroups is the best version

Re: Pass (1, Funny)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about a year ago | (#44150685)

And me without mod points

Re: Pass (1)

router (28432) | about a year ago | (#44151647)

Fucking floppies for the win!

Re: Pass (3, Funny)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44152545)

Don't copy that floppy! Never mind, it's GPL'd. Copy away.

Re: Pass (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44152243)

And me without mod points

You without mod points is the best version of you? Don't worry, having mod points is a metastable state anyway.

Re: Pass (2)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44150823)

screw that, the 3.0 (Warp) is the shitz

Re: Pass (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about a year ago | (#44152913)

I'm still running 2.0.36, you insensitive clod!

Re: Pass (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44152063)

Linux for Workgroups is the best version

Does it come with LinSock support out of the box?

Re: Pass (2)

chthon (580889) | about a year ago | (#44152397)

Trombone LinSock!

Re:Pass (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150667)

I was skeptical of all the claims of Bing being better than Google at first, but at some point I decided to give Bing a try. Thanks to Bing's amazing and comprehensive search functionality, I found out my uncle had cancer before his doctor could even move a single cheek! My uncle's doctor was able to remove the cancer while it was still in its early stages, and it's thanks to Bing that my uncle still lives! Needless to say, my entire family and my uncle's doctor are now Bingers!

Don't believe me? Bing it on! You'll be a Binger before you know it! [bingiton.com]

Re:Pass (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150675)

I'm really tired of this bullshit, and I'll never use Bing, and I'll make sure to tell all my friends and family not to use this bullshit because I'm so sick of these posts...

Re:Pass (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150839)

NSA employee here. I checked the IP address and it was actually posted by someone working at Google. His name is Dave and judging by his browser history, he seems to enjoy gay scat porn. His cell phone location logs shows unusual late night visits to known glory holes. He stays there for 1-3 hours at a time, so I guess we know which side of the wall he sits on. I'd I've already hit my daily quote PRISM quota.

Re:Pass (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44152555)

I feel so much safer know that the NSA is working hard to stop terrorist.

Re:Pass (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150847)

3.14 will be the 'geek' release the mainstream press will notice.

Note to kernel team: so try not to screw that one up.

so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151149)

They should be sure that release is "cherry" then?

Re:Pass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151757)

Just watch them go 3.13 -> 4.0

Re:Pass (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44152067)

It's not that it "crashed", it's just that we expect it to take an arbitrarily long period of time to start running again...

Re:Pass (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44152459)

They could always move up to 3.1415 if they screw up 3.14.

YOTLD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150553)

ITS HABBENING!

Did they put the 'Start' button back in? (0)

JoeyRox (2711699) | about a year ago | (#44150599)

Oh wait...

Re:Did they put the 'Start' button back in? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150721)

Personally, I'm wondering if anything has been put in there to facilitate government spying.

And relevant to the conversation, do you know how to have sex with a menstruating woman? Having sex with a woman in her menstruating state is not dirty or unnatural, it is a visceral celebration of life and fertility. The menstrual flow itself represents vitality and fertility. Three factors are important in having sex with a menstruating women - acceptance and the hygiene of location (aka what to do about the mess).

Acceptance by both partners is the first step. Those of you in relationships comfortable with menstrual sex should skip the the paragraph below. Otherwise, do you as a man accept it? Good, because if you don't, then you' re a pathetic excuse for a man who should slap a fedora over his neckbeard and spend life beating your dick to ponies. Does she like the idea? Most first-time women are uneasy about it because (a) they're insecure and think they're dirty and/or (b) they're worried about the mess. Press a resistant partner gently, start by telling her how good she tastes during other sex acts. Tell her that she smells good constantly, and that it's her bare skin which smells good, not the shit she dumps in her hair and sprays on her tits).Tell her how good her intimate fluids taste. Tell her that it will relieve her cramps and increase blood flow. Prod her gently over a period of time until she submits. As for the mess, information to explain to her is found in the next paragraph.

Location, location, location. The bathtub or shower is always the best and easiest place, but what if for some reason you don't have a bath or your shower's too small? Have a swimming pool or jacuzzi? Otherwise, you're gonna have to think fast. How heavy is she flowing? For light flow, keep a couple clean black towels handy, as they can be laid simply across the center of the bed or folded for extra protection. When flow is heavy and sex is hot, no amount of laying shit down will prevent your mattress from staining - you must buy one of those vinyl bed covers for people who piss themselves, and then a black comforter to lay on top of it. Don't do that on a first try unless your partner is no stranger to period sex. Do not hamhandedly plant red palm-prints all over your pillowcases, headboard, and walls after manual preliminaries. Be sure to throw all sex-related things in the hamper (or washing machine, if you have one handy) after you are finished for the night. And if you're a stallion like me, that's usually into the next morning. Remember, tell her how good she smells and tastes before and after - positive reinforcement is key.

Note: If you stain your mattress, there isn't a damn think you can do to completely remove the stain, trust me. I've tried everything. You have to live with the stains and accept yourself for who you are. And it's bloody obvious if a potential suitor sees your bare mattress before you do the deed with her, so she will have to accept that - the best thing to do is not let her see it until you do it with her, and then you can tell her that those stains are hers. I have the juices of seven women in that spotted double-pillow-top which I won't get rid of at anyone's request.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Did they put the 'Start' button back in? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about a year ago | (#44150901)

"wondering if anything has been put in there to facilitate government spying" - Didn't you read the article about Atlassian?

Re: Did they put the 'Start' button back in? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150999)

Fucking Vampire!
Take this garlic.

Nvidia drivers (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150613)

Nvidia drivers should be available for the new stable beast by the end of next month. They will get around to it when they are darn good and ready. 3.10-rc1 broke the latest driver. They released a driver about two rc releases ago, but it was still borken. I actually think they released it so that they could say 'see, see, we released a driver just a few weeks ago, so you shouldn't see anything new from us for a while!' It was a fluke that my current hardware build included an nvidia video card (the radeon card I originally bought was borked from the computer store: it wouldn't display video), so I took it back and the only thing they had that was close was an nvidia. They have worked hard to lose me as a customer. I suspect next time they will be successful.

Re:Nvidia drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150737)

What are you even yammering about? The binary drivers?

Learn to linux, instead of whine. There are always patches to fix the NV binary drivers, which you should be familiar with if you are gung ho enough to actually bother running an upstream kernel.

Re:Nvidia drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150817)

The best patch I could find does not do any accelerated video at all. It works, but barely. And the nouveau drivers only display one monitor --its a 9600GT, and its been a bug (across distributions) for at least 4 years. Nouveau isn't telling the nvidia card to start displaying through the second dvi port. One screen is black, and I can drag windows to it, and when I start new apps, they sometimes open there, and then I have to go to the window manager and drag them to a screen I can see. I've sent mmio trace logs to the nouveau folk, but they don't seem interested (they are more interested in changing the clock frequencies of the cards to improve performance, and thermal monitoring so they don't cook the cards when making them run fast).

Re:Nvidia drivers (1, Funny)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year ago | (#44151101)

So you have a four year old card that can be upgraded with a $50 new card and you are complaining it doesn't work with bleeding edge? I'd suggest you buy a new ATI card and enjoy the wonderful world of restarting X when you resize a window. Have you actually checked if the ATI driver works with 3.10 before you started this rant? I wouldn't be surprised if it wouldn't work either.

Re:Nvidia drivers (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44152583)

From what I've read, both AMD and NV have horrible drivers and only Intel IGPs run well, being the only well documented supported open source GPU drivers.

Re:Nvidia drivers (4, Insightful)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about a year ago | (#44150757)

I agree in that I wish Nvidia would go faster, but what will you do? Run Noveau? The fact remains they DO support Linux, and they do it a helluva lot better than AMD/ATI do.. Now, if you don't run 3-D games that tax the hardware you'll probably be fine. I'm not picking on you so much as expressing frustration at the people who complain about Nvidia. No, their support isn't perfect. Yes, they've stumbled. Yes, they pour most of their resources into the Windows driver because Windows, crappy as it is, has 90% of the market. Mod me down, bitch about what I'm saying, whatever. I run Linux myself with an aging GT240 card. I boot into Windows once a month on my main machine for Patch Tuesday. ATI is not a real viable option, and while Intel graphics is fairly well supported, their 'cards' are not really as powerful. Be patient. There'll be a new driver out soon.

Re:Nvidia drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150873)

Sorry, but I just can't stand people who still parrot this AMD/ATi doesn't have Linux support bunk. AMD is easily as on top of the game as nVidia if not moreso. Their current and past lineups all work great in Linux, everything from the Radeon HD 5000 series and up (and the 3000-4000 weren't half bad either). Yes, ATi graphics sucked in Linux ten years ago. They don't anymore. If you're going to bash, at least get period correct information.

Re:Nvidia drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150967)

Wrong. It's impossible to use higher revisions of OpenGL on the open source AMD drivers, and the AMD binary drivers are complete shit.

Re:Nvidia drivers (2, Funny)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about a year ago | (#44151219)

But... but... but he had me going for a minute there! He had me convinced ATI had better Linux support than Nvidia! Now you go and ruins it. Thanks a lot.

Re:Nvidia drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151239)

Taking to the graphics part of the kernel, the Linux 3.10 will come with interfaces that would addressing of the Unified Video Decoder (UVD), which is a part of Radeon HD graphics cards. Userspace drivers for video accelerator are also planned for the next major Mesa 3D release.

It's much better, but I still have serious bugs (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year ago | (#44151115)

I have a 7850 and I get frequent X restarts with the latest binary driver after trying to resize a window that has something accelerated in it happening. Also, (not their fault) I can't use oclhashcat with the latest driver. It seems they have quite a few rough edges left to polish out still.

Re:Nvidia drivers (1)

idunham (2852899) | about a year ago | (#44151247)

Agreed.
HD3200 works splendid with Mesa 7.11 or later (GL 3.1 currently), and that's a few years old. Anything new enough before "GCN" (the new architecture that the upper-end HD7000 chips use) has GL 3.1, though GCN is still at 2.1 plus GLSL 1.3 (the version for GL 3.0).
HD5xxx up through HD8xxx currently have hardware VDPAU via UVD on Mesa.
HD4xxx and up to GCN have better OpenCL support via clover than any other FOSS driver.
Power management just got added, and it works.
Fedora 19 has good enough support to use six monitors with an HD7970, and WebGL works.

To the parent of the parent, the Naughts called--they want their drivers back.

Re:Nvidia drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151073)

>Windows, crappy as it is

So brave.

Re:Nvidia drivers (3, Insightful)

emblemparade (774653) | about a year ago | (#44151385)

I'm with you in this sentiment generally, though I'm also away of Linus' "fu** you, NVIDIA" moment. Apparently, NVIDIA are annoying collaborators with devs, and not only for video drivers.. so let's not cut them too much slack.

My pet peeve: people complain constantly that NVIDIA "refuses" to open source their drivers. But these people don't understand that it's not a matter of merely deciding to do so: the NVIDIA drivers contain a whole bunch of 3rd-party code that NVIDIA cannot legally open source. It would require either 1) a lot of legal agreements (and likely lots of royalty and lawyer fees) to make 3rd-party agreements, or 2) rewriting the 3rd-party code from scratch, without referring to the original code. Both of these tasks are monumental and very expensive (for task #2, they would have to hire new programmers that have not been "tainted" by having seen the original code).

Specs can't be "just" released for similar reasons: like the code, they are encumbered by patents and copyrights.

NVIDIA have expressed a general will to open source the driver, but it may take years to take it to the next step.

Re:Nvidia drivers (2, Insightful)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | about a year ago | (#44151413)

Given that patents has already been sent to the patent office and are public accessable from there; patent are never a reason for not open up specs.

Re:Nvidia drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151929)

Given that patents has already been sent to the patent office and are public accessable from there; patent are never a reason for not open up specs.

They are if the company in question is violating someone else's patents and they know it.

Re:Nvidia drivers (2)

Sique (173459) | about a year ago | (#44152331)

You don't violate a patent by publishing how it works. And you don't violate a patent by publishing the specs of a patent encumbered device. That's one thing patents are made for: You can publish how it works, and still the original inventor (or the current patent holder) doesn't have to fear his revenue stream dies.

Re:Nvidia drivers (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year ago | (#44152615)

I thought publishing how the patent works was part of the requirement of getting a patent. How else would they know what your patent is?

Re:Nvidia drivers (2, Interesting)

Bert64 (520050) | about a year ago | (#44151515)

So what's to stop them opening up those bits that they do own, and then allowing the community to fill in the blanks?
Considering people are willing to try writing a complete driver from scratch, replacing a few missing bits in an otherwise complete driver isn't much of a stretch.

Re:Nvidia drivers (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44152261)

for task #2, they would have to hire new programmers that have not been "tainted" by having seen the original code

Uhm, why?

Specs can't be "just" released for similar reasons: like the code, they are encumbered by patents and copyrights

That makes no sense. Patent encumbrance can't possibly matter for releasability (is that a word?) of specs; patents are public by definition. And copyright is yours if you write the spec yourself.

NVidia gave up that bullshit years ago. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44152639)

"They can't OSS because of maybe NDAs!!!" bullshit.

NVidia tried that but made the mistake of putting some verifiable information about what they were talking about years ago, fingering SGI for their inability to GPL their stuff. Not saying *what* information was involved, just that it was "SGI's fault".

SGI were asked by the FOSS community and many users if they could license whatever it was for FOSSing. SGI said openly "We are not aware of anything that NVidia have from us that we could not accept being put under GPL".

NVidia never tried that lie again, but fanbois a decade later are STILL crapping that shit out.

If NVidia have a "whole bung of 3rd-pary code that NVIDIA cannot legally open source", then what is it?

Or do you not know? In which case why do you pretend that this is a solid-cold fact?

Re:Nvidia drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44152099)

Nonsense. I have laptops with Intel HD+Nvidia and Intel HD+AMD. The latter I can actually play games on under Linux. The former I cannot without running third party stuff that is neither supported by Nvidia, nor by Ubuntu. I know this is going to change, but as of right now I'm not buying Nvidia laptops.

Re:Nvidia drivers (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44152791)

I have the same video card (in my case, the 1GB gigabyte card, whose fan has failed and which I've replaced with cooler master) and the same logical basis for my decisions. Best video card value I've ever bought. It's slow now, but it worked when I bought it even though it wasn't officially supported since it's derived from another card and it's still working today, many moons later.

The latest AAA games aren't on Linux, so unless you want to use it for GPGPU you just don't need the latest video card. You can save some money instead.

Re:Nvidia drivers (4, Insightful)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44150813)

don't blame nvidia for not supporting the ever-mutable internal API of the Linux kernel. it's your fault for trying to run bleeding edge crap; stick with stable polished mainstream distros and you'll always have an nvidia driver

Ever-mutable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151787)

Ah, Ye Olde "stable ABI" red herring all over again.

Mmhh. Herrings. Especially red herrings.

Re:Ever-mutable (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151895)

Ah, Ye Olde "stable ABI" red herring all over again.

Mmhh. Herrings. Especially red herrings.

If you're expecting them to just open source then you keep wishing on that rainbow.

The major difference between Linux and the Windows NT Kernel is that the Windows ABI is stable and backwards compatible, you can run drivers for XP on Windows 7, you can't run drivers for Linux 3.0 on 3.10 and that had far less time in between.

The fact that the graphics architecture in Linux is a clusterfuck with the transition from video-console + X.org to KMS doesn't help either. Microsoft makes those sorts of giant crap architecture redesigns between major versions instead of the pain of rolling patches.

Re:Nvidia drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150829)

Computer store? What's that? You mean like the internet?

Re:Nvidia drivers (2)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#44151091)

Given that 3.10 is not a release, getting new drivers for 3.10-rcX is better than you can expect with WINDOWS so I'm not sure what your bitch is. When I've upgraded Windows (RELEASE software) I've had driver issues for weeks or months while the vendors catch up. This has happened to me every single OS upgrade in Windows land, save for the jump from Windows 95 to Windows 98.

Having a cry about Nvidia's shitty Linux support for this is a bit off the mark, IMHO. They don't even put drivers out for rc versions of Windows.

Re:Nvidia drivers (1)

smash (1351) | about a year ago | (#44151093)

err... "Given that 3.10-RCX" is not a release...

Re:Nvidia drivers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151231)

Apparently you are a fool, you do not know how to use Google, and I suspect you are a troll.

http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=738

Captcha: bemoans

Re:Nvidia drivers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151627)

Apparently you are a fool, you do not know how to use Google, and I suspect you are a troll.

http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=738

Captcha: bemoans

Nobody gives a fuck about your goddamned captcha.

How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributions? (1)

PastTense (150947) | about a year ago | (#44150649)

How long before it shows up in major distributions such as Linux Mint?

Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150763)

Nov 1

Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150827)

The question is: "what useful features will they randomly decide to remove or disable, based on the whims of their magic 8-ball of UI design?"

Getting kinda tired of "upgrading" and having stuff I use regularly be gone. Sometimes after some serious digging I can figure out how to re-enable it, sometimes they've just decided *I* should be doing things their way.

I am greatful that the many people contribute to FOSS, do. So, thank you all.

But when you change something, there should always be a way for the end user to make it the way *they* like it.

Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio (2)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year ago | (#44150895)

What does kernel development have to do with UI design?

Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44152115)

It is all just retarded confusion. That is the whole problem with bothering with kernel version or mentioning that you use GNU userspace for a distribution.
It matters way more to the end user what version of Gnome/KDE/Unity/Android/Whatever is used.

Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150785)

Don't be a noob. Run linux-stable.git, you get the changes even before they are "released".

Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio (4, Informative)

donaldm (919619) | about a year ago | (#44150821)

How long before it shows up in major distributions such as Linux Mint?

Don't know, but Fedora 18 has 3.9.6-200.fc18.x86_64 and that was a week ago. A quick check of the updates indicates that the 3.9.6 kernel is still the latest. As far as getting the 3.10 kernel goes I would say within a week or two, however it really depends on your distribution and how up to date the maintainers like to keep the repositories.

If you are the repository maintainer for a customer that is using say Redhat Linux (you would be crazy to install a non supported Linux distribution on a production or even development machine) you may have a two to six month delay offset on updates and that is assuming that the customer or company allows 6 monthly updates. In my experience many companies don't like to do any updating once their systems are up and running and it is allot of work on the IT managers side to even get critical patches applied and without the appropriate sign-off's and agreed outages (normally 10 minutes) nothing gets done.

Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#44151685)

(you would be crazy to install a non supported Linux distribution on a ... development machine)

No, I strongly disagree.

You should be able to smash up your development machine with a hammer now, and be back up and running in a few hours. I've run all sorts of stuff as development machines, including distros far out of support for various reasons, and others like Arch which are totally bleeding edge.

Also, hardware aside, I've never screwed up a developement machine so badly that I couldn't put off fiing it until a convenient time. That includes accidently killing an ubuntu upgrade part way through.

Workstations can and should be very quick to replace and also not too heavily tied to a single install. It helps that everything I develop comes with configure scripts now. Makes it much easier for me to rebuild a working machine and makes it nice and easy for my customers to deploy on a fixed system or noew hardware.

Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio (1)

LoadedSum (2969253) | about a year ago | (#44151719)

I'm not 100% certain what you're implying by "non-supported Linux distribution" but if you're referring to that little bullet point on your Dell PowerEdge spec sheet claiming to support "Red Hat" as being some sort of gospel and installing Debian (for example) is "crazy" I must conclude you've been drinking the marketing kool-aid.

Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44152129)

Nope, "supported" in this case means that you pay someone to support you. If the machine stops working you have your ass covered in the sense that you can pass the blame onto the supporting company and instead of getting fired there can be a company wide decision to change to a different vendor.
Or you call them for support, they fix the problem for you, you write a small report that says that the problem would have been much worse with another vendor and that the current solution is great because you have statistically less downtime than competitors or whatever BS is required.

Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150885)

I'm sorry, I thought you said MAJOR distributions...?

Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150993)

It's funny because you pretend like Mint isn't a major distribution. I mean, it's not like it's the 2nd most widely used or anything, right?

Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio (1)

macemoneta (154740) | about a year ago | (#44151211)

Fedora makes available new kernels within a few days, for those that want to play with the latest and greatest. The 3.10 kernel should be available within the next 24 hours using the Fedora rawhide kernel nodebug repository [fedoraproject.org] .

Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150703)

You are one of the greatest and most generous people on Earth. Thank you for all your work!

Re:Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151121)

why, he didnt do shit except scream like a tyrant

Re:Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds (5, Funny)

turrican (55223) | about a year ago | (#44151175)

why, he didnt do shit except scream like a tyrant

Perhaps he's channeling Steve Jobs.

Re:Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds (2)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#44152091)

why, he didnt do shit except scream like a tyrant

A bit of applied tyranny can be just what certain situations need... (And, by historical standards, Torvalds provides tyranny services at extremely reasonable rates)

Re:Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44152701)

He is not generious, he is getting paid for this.

Been running it for over a month already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150743)

I'm always running the latest HEAD of linux-stable.git, I've been runnning 3.10-rc? for over a month now.

Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150779)

GNU Hurd is going to reach stable status very soon! At that point, Linux will be essentially obsolete.

Re:Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming (4, Funny)

iggymanz (596061) | about a year ago | (#44150795)

just in time to run the Perl 6

Re:Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#44150857)

GNU Hurd is going to reach stable status very soon! At that point, Linux will be essentially obsolete.

HURD? Heck, why? I mean: what's wrong with EMACS OS? You can even tweet [emacswiki.org] from it: try this using only the retarded Linux or HURD kernels!

(ducks)

Re:Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming (2)

idunham (2852899) | about a year ago | (#44151267)

Yea, sure, EMACS is a great OS.

It just lacks a decent editor. :!duck :x

Re:Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming (3, Funny)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#44152147)

It just lacks a decent editor

No it doesn't. Try the following:

M-x term
vi

Re:Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming (2)

Drishmung (458368) | about a year ago | (#44150973)

I take it OP is an astrophysicist, and anything quicker than stellar evolution is "very soon".

Mad Catz Street Fighter IV FightPad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44150923)

From Linus' release note commit summary:

Shawn Joseph (1):
Input: xpad - fix for "Mad Catz Street Fighter IV FightPad" controllers

I'm not a gamer, but this Mad Catz controller [osfeeds.com] seems to be a 3rd party replacement game controller for the Xbox... until now?

Re:Mad Catz Street Fighter IV FightPad (1)

CalcProgrammer1 (1163305) | about a year ago | (#44151069)

Makes perfect sense, the xpad driver is for Xbox controllers... The Xbox and Xbox 360 (as well as PS3 and probably next-gen) controllers already interface via USB so they make great PC controllers as well.

I wish they would fix khugepaged (1)

Megor1 (621918) | about a year ago | (#44151027)

Still no fix for khugepaged killing your system :(

Re:I wish they would fix khugepaged (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151145)

Yeah, someone should invent "echo madvise > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled" and maybe make the default a config option or something... oh, wait.

Re:I wish they would fix khugepaged (2)

Megor1 (621918) | about a year ago | (#44151443)

Yeah, someone should invent "echo madvise > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled" and maybe make the default a config option or something... oh, wait.

Except that crappy workaround doesn't fix it, you have to set it to never as a workaround or simply disable transparent huge pages on boot.

Ok (0, Troll)

The Cat (19816) | about a year ago | (#44151107)

4 comes after 3.9

3.10 comes after 3.00

Thanks.

Re:Ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151329)

Software's been versioned this way for decades. Learn to accept it. 3.10 > 3.9.

Re:Ok (3, Informative)

Kidbro (80868) | about a year ago | (#44151497)

No [semver.org] .

Re:Ok (1)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#44152447)

That (totally non-standard) spec you point to has a severe downside: it recommends for pre-releases to have a patch level. That's no only wasteful (it will be always 0), but also makes pre-releases sort AFTER the final:
3.0.0-rc1 > 3.0.0
3.0-rc1 < 3.0.0
(because - < . in ASCII).

Most projects I know of, including Linux, use 3.0-foobar for versions leading to 3.0.0.

Re:Ok (4, Informative)

nashv (1479253) | about a year ago | (#44151691)

You are wrong. You are assuming software version numbers are numeric, following a decimal number system. They are not.

They are strings, in this case, of the format : '(major_iteration).(minor_iteration)'. Such a pseudo-numeric format is used for several other denotations. A commonly used one is the date. A less common one is chromosomal locations of your genes. To parse such a string, you must know the rules of the format.

Print this, paste it on your wall. And never whine about software version indicators of any kind ever again.

Re:Ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151725)

these are not base-10 numbers.

Re:Ok (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151915)

Wtf are you doing here? You should get a nervous breakdown just by trying to type one sentence after another. Look, there you got another one of those, it wasn't even preceded by a numerical nor was it followed by one. Not to mention the very address of this place - linux.slashdot.org. Brain substitute melt-down!

Re:Ok (1)

Waldeinburg (737568) | about a year ago | (#44152757)

Just don't upgrade to version 3.10, then you can still round up and say, "I'm roughly running version 4".

SHHH !! CAN YOU HEAR THAT ?? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151141)

The collective yawn !!

Slashdot !! Ride this up with headline, like

LINUS RIPS UNDERLINGS A NEW ASSHOLE !! while releasing Linux 3.somethingorothee THE WORLD MUST STOP AND TAKE NOTICE !!

My recent experience with Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151171)

I work as a consultant for several fortune 500 companies, and I think I can shed a little light on the climate of the open source community at the moment. I believe that part of the reason that open source based startups are failing left and right is not an issue of marketing as it's commonly believed but more of an issue of the underlying technology.

I know that that's a strong statement to make, but I have evidence to back it up! At one of the major corps(5000+ employees) that I consult for, we wanted to integrate Linux into our server pool. The allure of not having to pay any restrictive licensing fees was too great to ignore. I reccomended the installation of several boxes running the new 2.4.9 kernel, and my hopes were high that it would perform up to snuff with the Windows 2k boxes which were(and still are!) doing an AMAZING job at their respective tasks of serving HTTP requests, DNS, and fileserving.

I consider myself to be very technically inclined having programmed in VB for the last 8 years doing kernel level programming. I don't believe in C programming because contrary to popular belief, VB can go just as low level as C and the newest VB compiler generates code that's every bit as fast. I took it upon myself to configure the system from scratch and even used an optimised version of gcc 3.1 to increase the execution speed of the binaries. I integrated the 3 machines I had configured into the server pool, and I'd have to say the results were less than impressive... We all know that linux isn't even close to being ready for the desktop, but I had heard that it was supposed to perform decently as a "server" based operating system. The 3 machines all went into swap immediately, and it was obvious that they weren't going to be able to handle the load in this "enterprise" environment. After running for less than 24 hours, 2 of them had experienced kernel panics caused by Bind and Apache crashing! Granted, Apache is a volunteer based project written by weekend hackers in their spare time while Microsft's IIS has an actual professional full fledged development team devoted to it. Not to mention the fact that the Linux kernel itself lacks any support for any type of journaled filesystem, memory protection, SMP support, etc, but I thought that since Linux is based on such "old" technology that it would run with some level of stability. After several days of this type of behaviour, we decided to reinstall windows 2k on the boxes to make sure it wasn't a hardware problem that was causing things to go wrong. The machines instantly shaped up and were seamlessly reintegrated into the server pool with just one Win2K machine doing more work than all 3 of the Linux boxes.

Needless to say, I won't be reccomending Linux/FSF to anymore of my clients. I'm dissappointed that they won't be able to leverege the free cost of Linux to their advantage, but in this case I suppose the old adage stands true that, "you get what you pay for." I would have also liked to have access to the source code of the applications that we're running on our mission critical systems; however, from the looks of it, the Microsoft "shared source" program seems to offer all of the same freedoms as the GPL.

As things stand now, I can understand using Linux in academia to compile simple "Hello World" style programs and learn C programming, but I'm afraid that for anything more than a hobby OS, Windows 98/NT/2K are your only choices.

thank you.

Re:My recent experience with Linux (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151193)

only over a decade late on that post!

Re:My recent experience with Linux (1)

dbIII (701233) | about a year ago | (#44151273)

Get a new bit of stuff to cut and paste to earn your money you very lazy shill - Win2k and VB are from a decade ago.

Re:My recent experience with Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151481)

This is a rather elaborate joke of some sort.

Re:My recent experience with Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44151861)

It is from http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=831936

Haven't been prone to problems? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#44152687)

The 3.9 releases haven't been prone to problems? Half of the 3.9 RCs panic'd my Phenom II X6 1045T system.

I call shenanigans.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?