×

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!

2.6.13 Linux Kernel Released

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the almost-as-good-as-a-kernel-of-corn dept.

Announcements 464

LynuxFre@k writes "Linux Torvalds announced the release of the 2.6.13 Linux kernel. He noted that there was a major change to the x86 PCI code, and that while all bugs from the change were believed to be found during the release candidate phase, it's possible that some devices may have problems. From this release on, it is intended that major changes only be merged into the kernel within two weeks after a major release. The rest of the time will be spent fixing bugs, with the goal of both increasing overall stability and decreasing the amount of time between major releases. Download the latest Linux kernel from a kernel.org mirror."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

464 comments

How to tell if you are a linux fanatic. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426430)

1. You rejuvenate and dance when you hear a windows flaw exposed, but you conveniently ignore the thousands of security flaws exposed in linux.

2. You yell loudly TROLL! at any person's post or at any person you see posting facts that you do not want to hear about your oh so cool linux.

3. You know it's a classic case of penis envy, you don't have all the support, software and hardware available for linux and you have to let that anger out somewhere, but you don't have the brains to admit it.

4. You hate windows, hate Microsoft, but race to emulate windows, have programs to run office from within linux, and spend a $300 on a Windows emulator, only Windows fools.

5. You cannot admit that you don't have professional usage of Linux outside server markets.

6. You cannot admit that most of the joe user out there when told that there is linux will respond, what is that?

7. You cannot admit that there is no professional printing capabilities in linux.

8. You cannot admit that you are a masochist (otherwise why would someone spend hours playing with scripts,
and recompiling programs that are available for Windows?)

9. You cannot admit that there is no professional desktop publishing done on Linux.

10. You cannot admit that no one in their right mind would do professional video editing in Linux.

11. You cannot admit that linux sucks when it comes for gaming/home entertainment or education.

12. You have problems in understanding Windows, and you will blame your own incompetence on Microsoft.

13. You have problems in pointing a clicking, but have no problems in wading through cryptic scripts written by lunatics.

14. Nothing will get past that shit that fills your head, you will not admit to any facts.

15. You can't admit that naming of linux components, packages, and others are weird and fits profiles of troubled teenagers. gentoo, lgx, rpm ....

16. You feel angered because you were left out by microsoft's Media technologies, they support Mac, Sun sparc, but not linux.

17. You feel inferior deep inside but unable to admit it, you don't have a database as easy and powerful as Access.

18. You cannot tell that not a single office package outside Microsoft's is worth looking at or bothering with.

19. You don't know that your CD recorder software sucks.

20. You don't have DVD-RAM, DVD-R, DVD-RW support in your pathetic OS.

21. While the rest of the world moves on, you're stuck in a stone age technology that needs third party software to boot into GUI.

22. You act out of prejudice, you kill file domains and users of specific news readers while you ignore the bullshit that your fellow linux losers post.

23. You don't know commercial support in Linux is almost non existent.

24. You miss the fact that companies are leaving linux because of the chaos, and the cheap linux losers who are unwilling to pay and support hard work, Corel, gaming companies,...etc.

25. You are unaware that linux has no terminal services (there is a lame one that no one uses), and commercial support for it is not happening.

26. You are unaware that setting up servers on Windows takes couple of minutes while on linux, good luck playing with configuration scripts.

27. You cannot admit that support for USB on linux is laughable at best.

28. You think that Linux is better because slashdot told you so.

29. You spend countless hours flaming people because they post their opinions about your oh so cool linux and your attitude, instead of researching things for yourself and understanding fact in order not to look this stupid.

30. You think that anyone who uses linux has a clue.

31. You think that linux cannot crash.

32. You think that everyone is interested in your conspiracy theories about Microsoft (or should i say M$ in order for you, teenagers to understand?), and how they destroyed linux, ...etc.

33. You keep ignoring the fact that thousands of linux servers get hacked every year, but it takes one Windows server hacked to get you and your fellow linux idiots to dance and celebrate.

What kind of person are you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426461)

What kind of person are you that these "linux fanatics" would make so angry and desperate as to spend hours writing this stuff and posting it to slashdot?

Sorry (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426547)

You cannot admit that no one in their right mind would do professional video editing in Linux.


Industry standard 3d, compositing and editing tools all run under linux which is the natural progression because of their IRIX legacy.

I've also done some DTP under linux but that probably wasn't professional, since I didn't just bang a series of poorly masked raster images together like most 'professional' agencies we dealt with.

Does this make me a linux fanatic?

kernel bug fixes (3, Insightful)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426436)

"From this release on, it is intended that major changes only be merged into the kernel within two weeks after a major release. The rest of the time will be spent fixing bugs, with the goal of both increasing overall stability and decreasing the amount of time between major releases."

I wish Linus would arrive at a policy and just stick with it instead of all these gyrations of "we'll use this method from now on...no wait...we'll use this one from now on...and by the way I want everyone to switch revision control systems now...oh wait...sigh.

Re:kernel bug fixes (2, Insightful)

red_dragon (1761) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426469)

I wish Linus would just stick with fixing bugs in stable releases and leave major changes to development versions, but I guess that'd take finding him a new toy to play with.

Re:kernel bug fixes (1)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426525)

Developement-version = 2.6.x and 2-6.x-mmz

Stable-version: 2.6.x.y and vendor-kernels

Maybe things were named differently in the past. But what matters is they way they are named today.

Re:kernel bug fixes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426615)

$ finger @ftp.kernel.org
[zeus-pub.kernel.org]
The latest stable version of the Linux kernel is: 2.6.13
...

I'm not rejecting your claim that 2.6.x is development and 2.6.x.y is stable, but if it's right I'd like them to make it a bit more clear.

Re:kernel bug fixes (1)

makomk (752139) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426682)

2.6.x kernels are officially stable versions too, though it might still be advisable to wait a while for the bugs to get ironed out.

Re:kernel bug fixes (3, Insightful)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426473)

As long as things aren't changing bimonthly, I don't see a horrendous problem. There's much to be said for being flexible.

Then again, if it happens too often, more time is spent switching back and forth between the new "great" ideas than doing actual work.

Re:kernel bug fixes (5, Insightful)

Knome_fan (898727) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426480)

I can't really understand why so many people have a problem with the current policy and the policy changes.

What exactly is wrong with refining the development process?

Re:kernel bug fixes (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426561)

um...... well.. uhhhhh.. u no.. tis liek..
liek businez n stuf k? if dey wud keep changin stuf liek ev ry day it wud liek.. not work.. k? n it's not profesionel

tiem iz $$$

peas out

Re:kernel bug fixes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426588)

What exactly is wrong with refining the development process?

Hmm, let's see. Doing it too often so that noone actually knows what process is in effect currently?

Linux isn't the center of the world. Look at the BSDs. A release is a release I can use. I don't have to lookup what development "process" the top coder monkey sucked out of his ass this week.

Re:kernel bug fixes (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426654)

When I looked at FreeBSD, I saw their 5.x development cycle slipped 3 years and the resulting release was so crap the're hastily trying to shove 6 out the door - not that it appears to be much better.

Their development lists and process is closed to outsiders and seems to have done a good job at driving away talent and installing politicians.

No, if I'm thankful for anything about Linux's development process, I'm thankful that it is nothing like "the BSDs".

Re:kernel bug fixes (3, Informative)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426633)

When I can't find a stable kernel for one of my servers, it's a serious problem.

It's been hard to get long uptimes with 2.6... the network drivers are leaky/crash, SCSI support sucks.

It's just not been very hot.

Re:kernel bug fixes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426699)

Report the bugs and help the kernel developers find them.

FWIW, I haven't had any problems at all since 2.6.5 and have enjoyed a great 20% speed boost for one of my servers.

Re:kernel bug fixes (1)

GigsVT (208848) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426836)

Report the bugs and help the kernel developers find them.

If no one else is using adaptec scsi cards or 3com ethernet cards, then we have a problem!

Usually though the bugs have already been reported to LKML and the thread just died with no one doing anything about it.

Re:kernel bug fixes (1)

Neo-Rio-101 (700494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426494)

That just sounds like my company. The minute we get used to filling out reports a certain way, the management come up with another *brilliant* excel sheet format and we have to relearn how to fill out reports all over again.

Re:kernel bug fixes (1)

erlenic (95003) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426566)

Why don't you put it in Access? Then you only have to change the report template, and you never have to relearn the data entry. If the boss insists on seeing it in Excel ... I feel sorry for you ... er, I mean, Access can export it to Excel. You could even do it in a real database solution, like SQL Server or Postgres, it will just take a little longer.

Re:kernel bug fixes (5, Insightful)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426502)

It's not THAT bad. Revision control system has been changed twice during the lifetime of the kernel. Developement-method has been changed once, and now that method is simply being tweaked a bit. And what do you care how they develop the kernel? Are you are kernel-developer?

Or how would you like them to do it? "We will do things this way, and by god, we will do it like this untill the end of time! Even if better ways of doing this comes along, we will not change our ways!"

Re:kernel bug fixes (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426538)

Well I'm fairly sure Linus has a better handle on all the issues than you do.

But... gee, if it bothers you that much you can point Andrew Morton to your kernel tree, or send him your patches. He does a pretty good job of ensuring things don't clash, and queues it up and merges with Linus, getting initial bug testing and review along the way.

2.6 a year and a half old but... (2, Informative)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426621)

I wish Linus would arrive at a policy and just stick with it instead of all these gyrations of "we'll use this method from now on...no wait...we'll use this one from now on...and by the way I want everyone to switch revision control systems now...oh wait...sigh.

This PCI code rewrite doesn't bother me as much as some of the recent 2.6 releases including new drivers for obscure proprietary hardware.

A large number of organizations (as well as Debian Stable and Redhat) still use 2.4. It's pretty pathetic. 2.6 was released in December of 2003, over a year and a half ago. It offers significant performance advantages over 2.4 in many areas. Maybe instead of spending time switching policies, kernel developers should be consulting with end-users (note: this does not mean just/predominantly IBM and the other big fish. It means people like US, too) to find out why we're not using 2.6. Aside from security patches, any effort on 2.4 development/maintenance needs to stop. It's a brain drain, and active maintenance is encouraging people to be lazy in upgrading (and that's probably part of the issue).

Right now 2.6 is a lame-duck kernel, and if they keep trudging on and release the next stable without looking at why 2.6 isn't the defacto kernel of choice today, Linux will be rather fubar'd.

Re:2.6 a year and a half old but... (1, Insightful)

XO (250276) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426804)

Why would the developers care one bit about what's going into use in old ass distributions, by default?

  Debian Stable = things that have been 'thoroughly' tested for like 2 years or more. Hell, even using Debian Unstable, most of your software is still incredibly out of date.

  Red Hat isn't quite as slow. But pretty darned slow.

Re:2.6 a year and a half old but... (2, Informative)

JonJ (907502) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426822)

A large number of organizations (as well as Debian Stable and Redhat) still use 2.4. It's pretty pathetic. Debian provides both a 2.6 and a 2.4 kernel when you install debian stable, if you don't like it, use another distro. RHEL 3 was released quite some time ago, and the 2.4 kernel that was provided was probably heavy patched, since RedHat has quite a number of kernel hackers employed. RHEL 4 features a 2.6 kernel. If the only examples you could come up with of distros still using the 2.4 kernel, I'd say pretty much every distro uses 2.6. SUSE does, Mandrake does, Slackware has it as an option, debian has the option, Ubuntu uses 2.6, and so on.

Why is Linux so great? Please share your reasons (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426439)

Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.

Why do you hate freedom so much? (1)

Enoch Lockwood (889602) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426471)

I've never understood how anyone can hate Freedom that much...

Re:Why do you hate freedom so much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426720)

There ought to be limits to freedom.
- G. W. Bush

Linux Torvalds (4, Funny)

The New Andy (873493) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426444)

I'm sure there is a witty comment to make about the fact that the very first word in the article summary is wrong, but I can't quite fit it all together.

I'm not really a grammar/spelling/correctness nazi either, so I can't really complain about slashdot going down hill. I just feel compelled to post.

Uh... I wish my name was Linux?

Re:Linux Torvalds (4, Funny)

carndearg (696084) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426478)

Uh... I wish my name was Linux? No y'dont. You'd have Aussie lawyers after you for licencing fees!

Re:Linux Torvalds (1)

amightywind (691887) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426549)

I'm sure there is a witty comment to make about the fact that the very first word in the article summary is wrong...

You're right. They should have said GNU/Linux.

Coral (2, Informative)

Saiyine (689367) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426446)


This is a cool use for the Coral Cache, mirroring files this big: the kernel [nyud.net].


--
Dreamhost [dreamhost.com] superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

Re:Coral (3, Informative)

croddy (659025) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426481)

dude, there's no need to stick kernel.org behind the (comparatively sluggish) coral cache.

it's kernel.org. they mirror [kernel.org] other people's stuff.

Re:Coral (1)

Saiyine (689367) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426513)

Yeah, you're right.

I was thinking about posting something about binary patches to alleviate the use of bandwidth, when I read this on the kernel web: Apr 9, 2005: Both the new servers are now in full production use. Each is connected to a separate ISC gigabit link. Enjoy!...

But again, it's a 40 megs file... who will win?

--
Dreamhost [dreamhost.com] superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

Re:Coral (1)

ScriptedReplay (908196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426689)

IIRC, they said they expected to come close to saturating their connection while mirroring a new Fedora Core release - and it didn't happen. That's significantly more than 40MB. I think kernel.org doesn't really have to worry about slashdotting.

Re:Coral (1)

Saiyine (689367) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426581)


And what can I say about the servers???

two separate Proliant DL585 quad Opteron servers, each with 24 GB of RAM and 10 TB of disk.

Man, those are machines!

--
Dreamhost [dreamhost.com] superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

Re:Coral (5, Informative)

LnxAddct (679316) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426717)

You're kidding right? A kernel release like this doesn't even make kernel.org break a sweat. Read this [kerneltrap.org]. The only time they ever even start to see some strain on their bandwidth is with a new release of Fedora, because they are a mirror for it (both of their gigabit links become saturated). For kernel releases though, they say that their bandwidth stays pretty normal at around 150Mbps to 200Mbps.
Regrds,
Steve

-1, Karma Whore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426793)

kernel.org has plenty of bandwidth for this.

Due Credit (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426447)

It's GNU/Linux, you bastard!

--
Richard M. Stallman

Nope (0, Offtopic)

Knome_fan (898727) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426464)

Sorry, I don't know if your post was intended to be funny, or simply a troll, but the kernel is just Linux and nobody ever claimed otherwise, least of all Stallman.

Re:Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426516)

Not anymore, fuzzypants.

It's all GNU/Linux. All of it! Mwuahahahahahahah!

--
Richard M. Stallman

Linus, not Linux (5, Funny)

altanhaider (764914) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426448)

It's LINUS Torvalds. God, I hate reading typoes!

Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (0, Troll)

Mike Bourna (748040) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426455)

It is absurd to think if Thorwaldes after 19 years of Linux development still hasn't got something fundamental as PCI to work properly, that he will have gotten it right this time.

I am what most people would consider a highly trained technical professional. Unlike most people who spout off at this site, I have the certificates to prove this, and furthermore they're issued by the biggest software company in existence.

I know how to tell facts from marketing fluff. Now, here are the facts as they're found by SEVERAL INDEPENDENT RESEARCH INSTITUTES:

Expenses for file-server workloads under Windows, compared to LinuxOS:
  • Staffing expenses were 33.5% better.
  • Training costs were 32.3% better.


They compared Microsofts IIS to the Linux 7.0 webserver. For Windows, the cost was only:
  • $40.25 per megabit of throughput per second.
  • $1.79 per peak request per second.


Application development and support costs for Windows compared to an opensores solution like J2EE:
  • 28.2% less for large enterprises.
  • 25.0% less for medium organizations.


A full Windows installation, compared to installing Linux, on an Enterprise Server boxen:
  • Is nearly three hours faster.
  • Requires 77% fewer steps.


Compared to the best known opensores webserver "Red Hat", Microsoft IIS:
  • Has 276% better peak performance for static transactions.
  • Has 63% better peak performance for dynamic content.


These are hard numbers and 100% FACTS! There are several more where these came from.

Who do you think we professionals trust more?
Reliable companies with tried and tested products, or that bedroom coder Thorwaldes who publicly admits that he is in fact A HACKER???

--
Copyright (c) 2004 Mike Bouma, MCSE, MCDST, MS Office Specialist, widely respected Amigan

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;
with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover
Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU
Free Documentation License".

Re:Real world vs. fanboy fantasies (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426651)

Wow, I'm really impressed you managed to pass a multiple choice test, where you don't even need to have used the OS in question to get a certificate!

You sound like a fill the printer with paper lacky. Ooh, we're so impressed.

Something wrong (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426457)

All,

I just did cvsup -g -L 2 /etc/supfile-2.6.13 and nothing happened. Can you tell me what I did wrong, or does some of the possible breakage affect updating? :)
And good morning to you too...

How about a stable ABI? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426462)

I'm a fairly technical user, not a tech god by any stretch of the imagination, but I know my way around. I know how to forward ports on my router, I do all my own XVID rips from Vdub, I can install most Linux distros without a problem, and I'm damned proficient at packages like Photoshop and Illustrator. In addition, I'm a gamer from back in the DOS days, so concepts like editing text files (config.sys, autoexec.bat, etc) don't necessarily scare me.

That said, as much as I like the concept of Linux, I simply will not try it any longer until I hear that a number of problems have been solved.

A) Having to recompile kernels/worrying that apps will be broken by upgrading that kernel. For that matter, I don't want to have to compile anything, ever. Just to make this clear, never. Come up with either something akin to Windows where I click on a standard installer, or make it like Mac where I just drag and drop the folder.

B) Any time I'm forced to drop to a command line, you as a developer have failed. Back 10 years ago, this may have been acceptable. In this day and age, it isn't. Furthermore, while once in a blue moon I may change a text file in Windows, in Linux it's a constant occurence. Again, you have failed.

C) MAN pages do not cut it. Neither does a message board where half the time I'll be called a clueless n00b, 25% of the time I'll be told to use a different distro, and the other 25% of the time I'll get genuinely helpful people giving me contradictory answers. If I'm expected to jump to an alien computing environment you'd best make sure your documentation is up to snuff. Linux sucks in this regard.

I'm an advanced user who's in favor of open source, but the bizarre, arcane, and technical details I have to jump through to achieve the same things that are comparatively simple in Mac or Windows may Linux a deal breaker. You will never, ever, become successful on the desktop until idiocy like this is exorcised from the OS.

Re:How about a stable ABI? (5, Interesting)

erlenic (95003) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426536)

I'll give you my opinions on these.

A) It's been years since I've recompiled a kernel, and I've only compiled a few software packages in years. I use Linux daily at work, and exclusively at home. It may not be as easy to install software as on a Mac, but a good distro is equal to Windows.

B) I agree, but at the same time I find it rare that I have to drop to a command line to do normal computing tasks. I still go there daily, but by choice.

C) I can usually find anything I need online without having to post to a message board myself. However, I do agree that it needs significant improvement. I wouldn't expect non-technical people to search online for their answers.

By the way, you should find other examples to "prove" your technical skill. Ripping videos and using Photoshop aren't too "technical" in nature, especially here. Alternatively, don't try to prove it, just leave it assumed. Note: I'm not calling your knowledge into question, just your examples.

Re:How about a stable ABI? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426558)

As you may have noticed, this article is about the KERNEL. Changing your kernel is a very much geek thing to do. If there is any place you should expect to need the CLI to install something it is the kernel!

Compiling and installing a new kernel isn't for everyone, that's why there are these collections of tested software known as "Linux Distros" where geeks get the software packaged nicely so you can use a GUI to do all your upgrading. If the CLI scares you so much and you want to use Linux, I'd recomend using Fedora or Ubuntu and sticking to standard packages.

Re:How about a stable ABI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426735)

make menuconfig kthx

Re:How about a stable ABI? (3, Insightful)

10Ghz (453478) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426570)

I don't want to have to compile anything, ever. Just to make this clear, never.


You don't have to. years ago when I used SuSE, I never ever compiled anything, and I had no problems

Come up with either something akin to Windows where I click on a standard installer, or make it like Mac where I just drag and drop the folder.


Linux does have something similar. How about Yast or Synaptic or up2date? True, it's not identical to way things are done in Windows or OS X. But Linux is not Windows or OS X.

Any time I'm forced to drop to a command line, you as a developer have failed.


I don't think the kernel-developers are to blame if some GUI-tool doesn't do the job. They work on the kernel, not on the GUI.

Again, you have failed.


Failed at what? To satisfy the whims of some random user who propably hasn't paid one dime for the software he's using? Here's a hint to you: they (the developers) don't owe you anything.

Re:How about a stable ABI? (2, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426710)

>> Any time I'm forced to drop to a command line, you as a developer have failed.
> I don't think the kernel-developers are to blame if some GUI-tool doesn't do the job. They work on the kernel, not on the GUI.


In fact, if some functionality requires a GUI, people like me are mightily upset. The moment I'm forced to drop to a goddamn GUI, you (the grandparent poster) as a whiny user have failed.
[Disclaimer: not a single byte of my code can be found in the official kernel tree, so take my words with a grain of salt. Still, I don't really imagine Linus using mouse for anything but cut&paste]

Re:How about a stable ABI? (1)

strider44 (650833) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426838)

Add to that that noone's actually forcing him to compile his kernel or anything or even *shock horror* open the command line. Why can't the guy just wait until the distro has compiled it for him?

Re:How about a stable ABI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426607)

Hi! Where else have I seen your _exactly_ same points? Do you get paid for doing this?

Re:How about a stable ABI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426609)

You will never, ever, become successful on the desktop until idiocy like this is exorcised from the OS

Well, it sounds like we've got you out of the way, so we must be getting close.

Re:How about a stable ABI? (1)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426627)

Do you have to post this in EVERY goddamn thread about linux? Enough already.

Use SuSE or Mandriva. No compilation necessary, pretty user-frontends for config, and a big thick paper manual in the box in SuSE's case. If you don't want to have to make any choices, try ubuntu.

Re:How about a stable ABI? (1)

ooze (307871) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426630)

A) For any distro that considers itself a desktop distro you don't have to compile a kernel. Hell, evem when you use debian you don't have to compile a kernel. Needing to complile is only for those who want to do something very specific or for those who want to have "full control", which are very wide spread in the Linux community for some weird reason. And it is like this for at least 5 years already.

B)Anytime there is something I can't do automated, because there is no proper comand line or scripting tool, then the developer has failed. Right, computers are becoming used by virtually everyone. So the things everyone has to do with them (like opening doors in a car, and sitting into it) need to be simple. But if you want do real work (like actually driving a car), you need lots of training and learning, and preferably a test and a licence (this was kidding now) anyway. With computers it is far too often that people who only were passengers so far want to do a car mechanics job, and complain that it's hard, and that they fucked up their computer. But is sealing the whole chassis the solution? Access to the engine must be there...and not everything can be done from the backseat.

C) A little comparison. Whole company staffs, schools, public offices etc. get company sponsored, and even Microsoft sponsored training programs for Microsoft products several times every year. Yet most of them still are inept with computers and fail to grasp such simple concepts as file versioning. For Linux such things are just developing at the moment. Yet, there are millions of very able linux users out there who learned all they learned by only this very documentation and mailing lists you just trashed so passionately. Something's odd.

Re:How about a stable ABI? (4, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426636)

A) Fine. So we'll distribute one binary version of the kernel. It won't work as fast. It'll be hundreds of megs in size. It will take ages to load as it checks for every single known piece of hardware. You've just lost all the speed/memory advantage of having a tailored kernel. Alternatively, it'll come with a hundred modules. It'll also never be x64 optimised or, for that matter, able to work on every machine (some options crash some machines, while the opposite options may crash others) and APM/ACPI will NEVER work on some machines.

B) Fine. You come up with a GUI that can allow me to find files modified on the second Tuesday of every month between May 1, 1946 and June 27, 1978, which contain the words 'secret' and 'report' within 26 characters of each other, sort them by date, and replace any occurence of the word 'anchovie' by 'dead bug'. Some things GUI's just cannot do, some things GUI's do that are just command line interfaces in a fancy coloured textbox, some things GUI's can do once in the time that someone who knows the command can do twenty times.

Secondly, how do you expect a GUI to be able to do stuff like modify computer internals safely? Windows answer to this is usually that settings won't take effect until the next reboot, which makes your computer *stop all it's work* until it's done. X can be restarted with a single keystroke to have the same effect. Maybe a couple of command line edits in between but meanwhile none of your users have been disconnected, no programs have stopped doing what they were supposed to be doing.

Command-lines are not for the faint-of-heart. Then again, last time I touched the command line on my own Linux desktop (not counting other machines that are cmd-line only via SSH) was to run LILO - not something that a "desktop doughnut" should be doing. You obviously have either different ideas of what you should be doing on a normal desktop machine or have not found out how to do them GUI-wise. By the same token, Windows should never expect me to recover in safe mode, or via recovery console, or by running any batch commands ever. Fine for the ordinary desktop user because it very rarely does. Not fine for a power user. An ordinary desktop user wouldn't even notice if you ran a Windows GUI on a Linux machine.

C) Man pages can be a pain in the arse (make it compulsory to include enough examples to demonstrate every option!). HOWTO's are not always up-to-date. Forums are, pretty much, for people who want to know how to install this Linux thing they downloaded. Then again... how much documentation do you get with Windows?

A small booklet showing you how to use a mouse to point at the various icons. An online help system that, even with it's wizard-style help for some items, is next to useless if you don't know the terms to look for (I work support for six schools... that's about 60-100 staff and a few thousand pupils. I have NEVER seen or heard of anyone even bother to try using Windows Help or Help inside ANY program because it's never been useful to them). Annoying dogs, wizards, paperclips that people want me to TURN OFF for them because they can't figure out how.

That's surely Linux 0-0 Windows in terms of help.

If you're an advanced user, you've got to be comfortable with the command-line. I carry a USB key full of cmd-line utils and use them almost every day on Windows and Linux. It's amazing how much quicker "Start, Run, Cmd, ipconfig" is than navigating that poxy GUI network settings. And while I'm there, doing "route print" is the ONLY way to discover Windows network routes.

Anyone who's not going to set up networks or advanced stuff (i.e. users), or home users shouldn't ever NEED to worry about the command line on either OS. And they don't. They pick a distro like Lindows and once the installation is complete, they never see it again. Or they have a decent desktop set up and then never see the command-line again. You, however, are on the border. You are trying to do stuff that NEEDS a command line, stuff that's beyond a GUI point-and-click.

MOD PARENT DOWN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426683)

How quickly they forget about the XP service pack that broke everything and of course Microsoft's lack of documentation is laughable compared to the wealth of additional documentation availiable on linux (HOWTO's and package documentation).

Sounds like you already found an OS that fits your needs but feel free to rant about unrelated software in a story about a new kernel release.

Re:How about a stable ABI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426684)

You will never, ever, become successful on the desktop until idiocy like this is exorcised from the OS.

Who is this "you" that you keep referring to? Your post reads like every person involved in linux development is part of one coherent group that has the single aim of producing a successful desktop operating system, and that not reaching this aim is failure.

The extent to which kernel developers care about end users is that it works, and works well. Saving users from compiling kernels? Not there problem, it's the distribution makers role to produce packages. Protecting users from the command line? Likewise. Similarly for documentation.

Don't get me wrong, Linux being suitable for everyone's desktop would be wonderful. But that it isn't there just yet isn't failure. For me, everybody working on Linux has already won. They've produced an operating system that I want to use, and choose to use over the alternatives (and not due to the cost). For that, I thank them.

Re:How about a stable ABI? (1)

penguinoid (724646) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426694)

Having to recompile kernels/worrying that apps will be broken by upgrading that kernel. For that matter, I don't want to have to compile anything, ever. Just to make this clear, never. Come up with either something akin to Windows where I click on a standard installer, or make it like Mac where I just drag and drop the folder.

I'm a debian user. I am very lazy. I install everything with apt. If I don't know what I want installed I use synaptic (graphical installer, click to install). Soooo... `apt-get install kernel-headers-2.6-686`

Re:How about a stable ABI? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426725)

Feel free to continue paying (but see the * below) for inferior one-size-fits-all software. Linux is not for you, as you're certainly not a technical or advanced user as borne out by your odd reference to man pages - you are aware that there are alternative interfaces to the man pages other than the terminal? Oh wait, I forgot - you're neither technical nor advanced. Riddle me this - if a command line is such a failure, why are MS making a song, dance & musical extravaganza about the new command-line shell in a certain forthcoming OS? Bet that caught you out.

Quick rant - it's obvious that you want Linux to become some kind of free Windows clone so that you stop warezing* it and hunting around for serialz.

Just admit that you would rather pay for software, than use (or god forbid, contribute to) free software.

Linux DOES has a stable ABI (3, Informative)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426749)

Linux DOES has a stable ABI, this is, the syscall interface. It hasn't been changed in years...I know people who is running binaries compiled for linux 1.0 in 2.6 kernels. If your app breaks or works bad when changing the kernel version (ej: openoffice when the semantics of yield() where changed in 2.5) is probably because your app was broken in first place. Now, regression and bugs can happen too, but those aren't on purpose

Maybe you mean the internal kernel API - which affects to modules, NVIDIA & friends etc. That API is unstable on purpose, as explained here: http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds /linux-2.6.git;a=blob;h=f39c9d714db3d6bf2f6440d2f6 cf9353057eeae5;hb=02b3e4e2d71b6058ec11cc01c72ac651 eb3ded2b;f=Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt [kernel.org]

Or maybe you mean "compatibility" WRT gtk & friends, if GTK breaks compatibily thats their broblem

Re:Linux DOES has a stable ABI (1)

coolGuyZak (844482) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426805)

Well, while the GCC crew was prepping their C++ ABI they managed to break it at least once as well. GCC3->GCC4 compiles slightly different. Quite a pain when you run Gentoo and KDE :-!

But, in all honesty... I don't really know why we respnded to the GP in the first place... It was most obviously a troll.

Why aren't we at 2.7 yet? or 2.8? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426465)

The non-technical people out there understand version #s only enough to be confused here. They probably think Linux is stagnating. I'm not saying we need to rush ahead to "Linux XP" or something, but wouldn't it be wise to start incrementing something other than the 3rd set of digits?

Re:Why aren't we at 2.7 yet? or 2.8? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426479)

Non-technical people probably don't give a rat's arse which version of the kernel their Ubuntu/ SUSE/ Linspire install is running, if they even know what a kernel is at all.

Re:Why aren't we at 2.7 yet? or 2.8? (1)

bastiaannaber (701867) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426534)

Even non-technical people these days know that version numbers don't mean jack shit.

Re:Why aren't we at 2.7 yet? or 2.8? (1)

epaton (884617) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426602)

2.7 would be the unstable version, this is currently being done by a branch of the 2.6 kernel which was designed to be expanded and have features ported back into it.

Re:Why aren't we at 2.7 yet? or 2.8? (1)

fok (449027) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426661)

That would be Gnome XP or KDE XP or whatever-window-manager-you-are-running-XP. The kernel would be Linux NT. \m/

New release strategy (2, Interesting)

Sv-Manowar (772313) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426488)

The new release strategy being introduced as of this kernel, with two weeks before a feature freeze is an interesting step. The kernel development process has been changed a lot, and as much as some people may complain about these frequent changes, I believe it is in the search for a better way of working/more productivity. Surely exploring the problem for better solutions is a better way of trying to improve releases than putting up with a good-enough release method..

Devfs removed (5, Informative)

Saiyine (689367) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426551)


As they say in osnews [osnews.com], devfs [csiro.au] seems to have been removed from the kernel.

--
Dreamhost [dreamhost.com] superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

Re:Devfs removed (4, Informative)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426794)

not that many people is going to notice it - devfs wasn't really used in most of mainstream distros except 2 or 3. In some cases like Mandrake, they used it and then switched back.

And it's not a surprise, linux's devfs implementation was broken from start, and the idea behind devfs isn't a relly good one. Fortunately, udev is much better...

Re:Devfs removed (1)

XO (250276) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426818)

er... ? devfs has been deprecated for several revisions now, and was hardly in use to begin with... ?

Is this a joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426585)

Linux Torvalds announced the release of the 2.6.13 Linux kernel.

If it is, it's funny, if it's not...well, it's even funnier!

More kernel crashes as of late? (4, Interesting)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426586)

I've been using Linux since 2.0.27. It has usually been generally quite stable for me. But recently, I've been encountering more and more kernel crashes. For trivial things to, like a kernel crash when I try to use ifconfig yesterday when setting up a machine. And random crashes on one of my servers that doesn't seem related to RAM. I know that some kernel versions have "problems", but it seems to be more than that. A recent trend of unstability. Can anyone else who has been using Linux for a significant amount of time attest to this?

Re:More kernel crashes as of late? (1)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426652)

Can't say I've noticed kernel problems of late, and I tend to use the ck branch. Been having freezes, but that was heat-related in one case, and dodgy nvidia drivers in the other.

Re:More kernel crashes as of late? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426653)

I've had a few lock ups recently but I tend to blame the GLX module [happens with GL enabled XMMS plugins]. The kernel doesn't lock but XMMS basically rapes the cpu.

As for instability I've been able to boot/run Linux on pretty much anything. Laptops are fairly bad for standards compliance and some cheaper mobos like MSI are not too friendly.

Stick with ASUS or Gigabyte mobos, use dlink or broadcom networking, use nvidia GFX, etc... basically use HW from people who are linux friendly. :-)

Tom

Re:More kernel crashes as of late? (1)

suso (153703) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426676)

Right, I was also having the same problem with nvidia drivers and GL in general. But I'm talking about kernel panics, from the console (not even running X).

Re:More kernel crashes as of late? (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426707)

I'm running 2.6.12.5 on all my boxes [which include a Presario laptop, AMDX2 desktop, P4 Prescott desktop, P4 Smithfield desktop, P4 Northwood and a few AMD Semprons] with various configurations [both kernel and hardware].

My only complaint with 2.6.12.x is that the timer is poorly based on TSC [hint: cpufreq changes the TSC rate!!!]. So I keep losing time. Fortunately I've mitigated this through a */10 in my crontab and I run rdate.... it's a poor fix but for now will do.

Tom

Re:More kernel crashes as of late? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426757)

Yes, unfortunately I have the same experience. I used to rely on the vanilla Linux kernel tree being rock solid. Now I feel I must stay many months behind in order to avoid potentially catastrophic problems. Considering the number of bug fixes, particularly w/ regard to security, that can show up in new kernel releases, it's not an ideal situation: you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.

I've recently had networking go south when packets were being written to localhost. Some adaptec scsi stuff was recently messed up, apparently now fixed in 2.6.13 - but no way I'm going to try it until it's been out for a while. I've seen problems with quotas in combination with ext3. I recently started experiencing connection tracking weirdnesses with an iptables setup I've used at home for probably a couple of years. I've seen versions where network latencies would grow ever so slowly until they reached a critical threshold that sent my server(s) spiraling into oblivion. Yes, I file bug reports. Yes, problems get fixed. But at the same time, new ones show up. Sometimes bad ones.

I've become accustomed to rebooting Windows to fix problems, but that's exactly why I use Linux - because it was rock solid. I won't say that anymore, and it bums me out big time. I like new shiny objects too, but not at the expense of stability. Especially not on servers, which is where Linux has made the most headway.

The problem with the current versioning system is that even if there is a bug-fix only decimal release, and even if there is only a two week window to introduce new features, the bug fixing won't get done. Why? Because new features are more fun than fixing bugs. Even if I can't submit a new feature until several months from now, that doesn't mean I won't work on it in leiu of fixing bugs.

Linus should freeze the 2.6 kernel series against *any* new features at all, for a period of about a year. All work should be on increasing stability, ironing out bugs, improving device drivers, and other such menial housekeeping. The kernel contributers who really buck up, get to work, and help with this effort should get big karma bonuses from Linus. Those who hang back and work on their own thing should be pushed down a level in future kernel submission evaluations.

Sorry to be so negative, but I really hope this gets better. I'm a huge fan, but I have been wasting way too much time lately dealing with problems that end up being way beyond my control. When there is a problem with my systems, I want it to be my fault, because then I can do something about it.

Yes but... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426617)

Does it run linux?

THE NEWEST FEATURE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13426637)

I really hope it contains DRM, I hear that's the greatest new thing. Without it, you can't play mp3s and movies.

Re:THE NEWEST FEATURE (1)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426833)

You must be new here.

I mean, here in slashdot we have high-quality trolls, we love to be troll-ized by them.

But your start has been quite poor, really. Continue training...

I feel lazy today... (1)

penguinoid (724646) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426658)

Download the latest Linux kernel from a kernel.org mirror.

apt-get install kernel-image-2.6-686

No, it won't get the latest kernel, but it will get one that has been tested a bit first.

Perfect Timing... (2, Funny)

hardcorey (900374) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426670)

I just finished configuring and compiling the kernel for my desktop last night, and now Linus decides that I'm not important to him. Why doesn't he return my calls? Doesn't he love me anymore??

Woah (1)

FullMetalAlchemist (811118) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426731)

Woah, that Linux Torvalds guy must be annoyed that some retarded bearded hippie at MIT insists that he's a really is wilderbeast and thus should be named thereafter.

Humm...2.6.12 broke... (1)

Dimensio (311070) | more than 8 years ago | (#13426763)

...When 2.6.12 came along it broke my IDE-SCSI setup (I use one quirky piece of software that REFUSES to work unless my DVD-ROM drive is accessable as a SCSI device, and there's no alternatives available for it) and I couldn't make it work again. In addition, I completely lost audio from my bttv device and couldn't restore it.

I'm a bit hesitant to switch from 2.6.11.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...