Slashdot Mirror

Being a LKML lurker, here are a few of the new features.

• In-kernel Module Loader and Unified parameter support [kernel.org]
• Nanosecond Time Patch [iu.edu]
• Fbdev Rewrite [iu.edu]
• Linux Trace Trollkit (LTT) [iu.edu]
• statfs64 [theaimsgroup.com]
• POSIX Timer API [theaimsgroup.com]
• Shared Pagetable support [theaimsgroup.com]
• Hotplug CPU Removal Support and Kernel Probes (no link provided)

Linux 2.4.22, "12th birthday edition" is released. Get it before its slashdotted later

Am I the only one who's a little bummed that this virus may have been stopped dead in it's tracks here? I mean, my inbox got slammed with crap just like everyone else's, but because nearly all of my systems are running relatively secure operating systems, I've just kinda chuckle each time another dozen mesages shows up automatically routed to my "Junk/virii" folder.

It is pure, gleeful schadenfeude for me to think of all the hapless PHBs and MSCSE CIOs who are finally being given a little hint as to just how vulnerable they've left their companies. In the short term yes, many people will be inconvenienced and possibly some critical systems knocked out. But these hapless companies and also the public sector will eventually be forced to learn, and that's ultimately a good thing for all of us.

Kernel 2.6.0-test4 is released. Get it before it's SCOne

If you visit kernel.org you'll find the following license (the COPYING file) in /pub/linux/kernel.

It is the GPL v2 with the following preamble:

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Linus Torvalds

Doesn't seem to be anything other than user level code mentioned here, I guess we must assume that TiVo's modifications are user level.

John.

If you visit kernel.org you'll find the following license (the COPYING file) in /pub/linux/kernel.

It is the GPL v2 with the following preamble:

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Linus Torvalds

Doesn't seem to be anything other than user level code mentioned here, I guess we must assume that TiVo's modifications are user level.

John.

Look before you post..

The code was around before it was put into the main tree. Look at the date on the 2.4.16-ia64 patch, then open the file and you'll see ate_utils.c. I haven't followed it all the way up the patch list, but it's certain that ate_utils.c was around PRIOR to the Caldera relicensing.

No, no, no. Yes, things look bad (but we already know SCO loves to quote out of context). Yes, there is obviously code that is common between a version of Unix, and Linux, but the real questions become:

• What is the origin/history/heritage of the code in question?
• Who had the rights to the code in question?
• How much of the code can actually be copyrighted?

Looking at the code snippet that SCO appears to be showing: /arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c and its associated CVS history it would appear that this code first appeared in the Linux kernel courtesy of SGI (or possibly HP), as part of the Itanium kernel port. SCO/Caldera participated in the Monterey project -- what were the contractual obligations on all of the parties, before and after the breakup? IE: Did the code get there legitimately?

Keep in mind that depending upon what court you're in, there are limits to how much of software can actually be protected by copyright. Most of the UNIX header files (and therefore parts of the functions that implement the APIs) can not be protected by copyright, since you have to publish them to use them, and a competing implementation has to implement the same APIs. This is where AT&T lost to BSDI, resulting in the freeing of *BSD. For that matter, comments aren't considered to be part of the code in certain jurisdictions.

Personally, I'm more interested in seeing what non-hardware-dependent code SCO is claiming copyright over. We already know that SCO is claiming some nebulous 'rights' to SMP and RCU code, but how much and where and why?

From http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/marc elo/linux-2.4/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c

/*
* Free the previously allocated space a of size units into the specified map.
* Sort ``a'' into map and combine on one or both ends if possible.
* Returns 0 on success, 1 on failure.
*/
void
atefree(struct map *mp, size_t size, ulong_t a)
{

Do we really need *this* code ?

Also:

This bit here
and this bit here
and this bit here
and this 2.4 bit here
and this v6 bit here
and this ? bit here
and this pdp 11 bit here
and this manpage bit here

rm

In the heise.de screenshots from the SCO Forum: First screenshot, second screenshot.

A simple google search reveals that these comments are from malloc.c and/or ate_utils.c

The copyright at the tops says Silicon Graphics et al. WTF?

Linux is pronounced LIE-nucks.

On kernel.org you can find the correct pronunciation.

Just what we need... Another window manager when we already have a good one!

Although, it is always nice to have some peaceful quiet fun, rather than those rowdy programmers writing operating systems. Plus, they never learn from looking at other operating systems code.

Get it before its slashdotse.cx'd!

I'll just put a reference to the original version so that everybody can enjoy the joke:

ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/SillySounds/ english.au
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/SillySounds/ swedish.au

I'll just put a reference to the original version so that everybody can enjoy the joke:

ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/SillySounds/ english.au
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/SillySounds/ swedish.au

Being a LKML lurker, here are a few of the new features.

• In-kernel Module Loader and Unified parameter support [kernel.org]
• Nanosecond Time Patch [iu.edu]
• Fbdev Rewrite [iu.edu]
• Linux Trace Trollkit (LTT) [iu.edu]
• statfs64 [theaimsgroup.com]
• POSIX Timer API [theaimsgroup.com]
• Shared Pagetable support [theaimsgroup.com]
• Hotplug CPU Removal Support and Kernel Probes (no link provided)

Then link to /mirrors/ instead of the top of kernel.org. (Some time in the past I was unable to contact kernel.org for days, so I started mirroring the list of mirrors near my country.)

RedHat's Arjan van de Ven has RPM's here.

But: Half the fun of Linux is hand-tweaking your own kernel setup and compiling your own. Why not just do that? =)

Also, remember that you need to upgrade other pieces as well when going from 2.4 to 2.6 - the module utilities in particular. They are now known as "module-init-tools"

This is the correct link to http://kernel.org

That's probably supposed to be kernel.org.

And in case it's fixed later, it is broken right now. What's "htttp"? "hyper text texting protocol"? :)

The link to kernel.org is busted. If you notice, it has 3 "t"'s in the "http" part. Try this:

kernel.org

Get it before its slashfucked!

Darwin is great and all, but many of us already have a kernel to use. Apple may say they embrace open source but when are they going to release code to some of the various software that makes OSX unique? When they decided to use KHTML for Safari, I thought they would at least release the source code for Safari and not just the changes to KHTML.. Its not like Safari is innovative or anything, we already have better open source browsers, but releasing the source code would of been a nice gesture.

...I know a warez site that has copies of Linux on it. I could download a couple and take them to PC world where I could ask for my money back....little do they know I didn't payt a thing!

The ChangeLog says that the b44 driver has been reworked and should work now. I didn't have time to test it yet.

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/Change Log-2.6.0-test2

Being a LKML lurker, here are a few of the new features.

• In-kernel Module Loader and Unified parameter support
• Nanosecond Time Patch
• Fbdev Rewrite
• Linux Trace Trollkit (LTT)
• statfs64
• POSIX Timer API
• Shared Pagetable support
• Hotplug CPU Removal Support and Kernel Probes (no link provided)

The full changelog is here.

Get it before the GNAA^H^H^H^HSCO does

You can get patches for each new version of 2.4 from kernel.org and its mirrors. If SCO thinks it's safe to distribute 2.4.13 due to a lack of infringing code, then digging through the subsequent patches should reveal what code SCO thinks it owns[0].

However, I find it far more likely that SCO's lawyers are overrated and don't understand the implications of the GPL and GPL violations. I don't think SCO's lawyers understand that, by claiming certain pieces of code are not under GPL, that the entire kernel they are distributing here now falls under standard copyright law. Since SCO does not have copyright on the entire kernel, this distribution is illegal and itself infringing until SCO obtains permission from every other person who has copyrighted code in the kernel.[1]

[0] This seems to be a moving target, depending on who is speaking and what day it is, my opinion that the whole thing is a bullpuckey stock scam notwithstanding.

[1] The amusing thing is, timestamps on SCO's ftp server indicate there was a serious attempt to wipe out all signs of 2.4.13 kernel code and binaries on May 16, 2003. Despite this, you can still find several copies of 2.4.13 in the updates directory. I can't believe SCO's staff would fail to think of this, and I'm stunned that the legal teams haven't caught wind of this and demanded that these copies also be wiped out.

You can get patches for each new version of 2.4 from kernel.org and its mirrors. If SCO thinks it's safe to distribute 2.4.13 due to a lack of infringing code, then digging through the subsequent patches should reveal what code SCO thinks it owns[0].

However, I find it far more likely that SCO's lawyers are overrated and don't understand the implications of the GPL and GPL violations. I don't think SCO's lawyers understand that, by claiming certain pieces of code are not under GPL, that the entire kernel they are distributing here now falls under standard copyright law. Since SCO does not have copyright on the entire kernel, this distribution is illegal and itself infringing until SCO obtains permission from every other person who has copyrighted code in the kernel.[1]

[0] This seems to be a moving target, depending on who is speaking and what day it is, my opinion that the whole thing is a bullpuckey stock scam notwithstanding.

[1] The amusing thing is, timestamps on SCO's ftp server indicate there was a serious attempt to wipe out all signs of 2.4.13 kernel code and binaries on May 16, 2003. Despite this, you can still find several copies of 2.4.13 in the updates directory. I can't believe SCO's staff would fail to think of this, and I'm stunned that the legal teams haven't caught wind of this and demanded that these copies also be wiped out.

The code that was stuffed into your "GPL Legal" linux source code was stolen.

Well, we all know McBride's handle now!

You have, of course, proven that allegation in a US court, right?

You can believe in magic faeries if you want, if that helps rationalize where all the code magically came from.

Actually, the kernel development process has been remarkably well documented. The process operates like nearly all scientific studies in that information is published only after significant peer review. The entire Linux kernel tree is documented in one form or another all the way back to the first lines contributed by Linus.

The process has been conducted in the open, with the whole world watching.

What part do you claim was magically produced and what parts are stolen code?

Head over to kernel.org to see the entire tree back to pre-1.0. I have a 0.99 version lying about somewhere in my library I could post on an FTP site for you copy.

So, Mr. McBride, put up or shut up.

Goto Kernel.org, download the code and start removing all SYSTEM V style stuff, such as booting, IPC. If linux is to survive it must stop being a *NIX clone, and become something unique.

Since the promising 2.6 is alredy in a test phase, I would wait a couple of week to avoid the infamous module-related issues to upgrade a 2.4 kernel.
Is it possible to have 2.6.x (or even 2.5.75) as an option for the installation? Of course I woluld like it.

Indeed. Not only that, but since the line between OS and IE is so blurry, its so easy to wright these click and "oh shit" scripts. Some Operating Systems simply run the OS as a userspace program, the way it was meant to be. Of course, certain other operating systems limit what software users can install in the first place.

SCO has the chance to go kernel.org, download the latest kernel (2.6.0-test1-bk1) and strip out the offending code. But they prefer to use EXTORTION to support their dying company.

Who's really being the dumbshit? To rewind a tape I press the big button marked REWIND. To flash the DVD I have to do net research and basically hack. There's a qualitative difference there. If I'm going to hack something to get it to work, it better have been free.

The only thing that shows up being even close between the Linux kernel and the versions of Unix with source available is what seems to be a derivative of malloc and mfree in ate_utils.c

ate_utils is/was part of the NUMA code for IA64. It has been removed from the latest development and prepatch kernels (it's obsolete, from what I've read.)

There are some less interesting similarities between the signal handling code, but that's hardly remarkable. How many ways can you write a switch statement?

The key thing to remember though is that SCO doesn't actually claim they wrote the code. They claim to own rights in code that IBM wrote. I would bet that it's safe to assume that a detailed inspection of AIX and Linux 2.4.21 will reveal similarities. The question is, does IBM have the right to relicense code they created?

As a copyright holder, I belive that this criminal conspiracy is illegally distributing my intellectual property in violation of the license.

How do I report this matter to the FBI? What steps can I take to ensure that the software pirate enjoys an extended stay in Federal prison?

Last time I looked at ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/ must-fix/ there were still some showstoppers. It seems like they were updated about a month ago, so I guess progress must have been made on them...

The biggest problem I have with the newer kernels is probably some ACPI/IRQ routing bug in my board. It's a common problem with the NForce2 chipset (APIC doesn't work, so you have to boot with pci=noacpi or acpi=off). It's not the biggest inconvenience, but it causes half of my unused USB slots not to work...

I must say the snappiness of 2.6 is great! I'm looking forward to beta-testing. AFTER I backed up my drive, of course!

the main new dependency is module-init-tools, which replace modutils for module loading, etc.

The GNU Emacs 21.3 source distribution is about 20 MB in size. I could probably fit Emacs, GCC, Binutils, and Fileutils source code along with binaries for popular architectures on one normal sized 700 MB CD-R disc.

GNOME, on the other hand...

That said, it's not the easiest thing to do, but it's also not the hardest. Building the kernel is very easy: download the latest source, extract it into /usr/src/ and ...

make menuconfig

(Going through all the different options takes a while. Don't forget that almost all of them are extensively documented, and generally tell you when you're likely to need them. You might want to select "Prompt for development and/or incomplete code/drivers" in the "Code maturity level options" section (the first one!), if you want the latest stuff)

(also, don't forget simple things like enabling PPP - may sound obvious, but it's easy to forget the first time and then you'll wonder why you can't connect to the internet! Save your config to another location at the end, that way you'll be able to easily build new kernels without going through the whole shebang again ...)

make

cp arch/i386/boot/bzImage /boot/kernel25bz

(or whatever else you want to call your new kernel)

make modules && make modules install

Now edit /etc/lilo.conf to add your new kernel and run /sbin/lilo to incorporate these changes, then reboot. This is the hard part!! But if things don't work, you've still got your old kernel there to go back to.

It's also worth noting a few extra things you'll need, such as the latest Module Init tools, and you may also need to edit your /etc/fstab if you're using devfs and include a line such as

none /dev/pts devpts gid=5,mode=620 0 0

And you'll need to find a patch if you're using Nvidia's drivers.

... But that's about all the problems I've personally found so far ... :)

Q: How does the module remove code work?
A: It stops the machine by scheduling threads for every other CPU,
then they all disable interrupts. At this stage we know that noone
is in try_module_get(), so we can reliably read the counter. If
zero, or the rmmod user specified --wait, we set the live flag to
false. After this, the reference count should not increase, and
each module_put() will wake us up, so we can check the counter
again.

Also, the old OSS modules are still in the kernel. I haven't tried them in 2.5, and they are marked with a big DEPRECATED, but they're still there.

Note, of course, as I've said elsewhere, you do need the new module-init-tools; I'd imagine that would be the most likey reason you'd have trouble getting a 2.5 kernel working, followed closely by an out of date/broken driver.

Yes, but install the new modutils first.

Will this be simply a kernel upgrade and I'm running 2.6? Or... will I have to wait for a distro to release their 2.6 version?

Kinda-sorta. Unless your system is wierd, you should be able to take a 2.5/2.6 kernel, drop it in along with the new modutils (sys-apps/module-init-tools for the gentoo people) and it should work... for the most part, the kernel doesn't break old userspace programs.

You might need new libraries to take advantage of some new features, of course.

Shouldn't OSS be about solving problems that people want to work on rather than trying to be a cloning engine for Microsoft software?

Bingo. Sometimes I shake my head at the lengths people go to bash M$ at every chance they get, then spend tons of effort to clone them. The first blatent one was when RH shipped thier default windowing system to be FVWM95. I still havn't gotten over that one. KDE and to an extent GNOME are not too far behind either. For example. Why in the world do they put the start thingy/taskbar/icon collector at the bottom of the screen? Because M$ put it there first. Take a look at your browser. See all the menus up top there? See the titlebar to move the window and close it etc? Shouldn't the taskbar be up there too?

Look at StarOffice and OpenOffice. They seem familiar. And there are plenty of others, but I think you get the point.

Another thing that M$ gets bashed on here is because they "embrace and extend". Many, many open source projects do exactly this.

Don't get me wrong. I like OS and there are beautiful examples of its success, like Apache, Linux, Galeon/Mozilla. The last one is an excellent example. I never thought of what I would want out of a browser, I just knew they all sucked a few years ago. However, Galeon is exactly what I want out of a browser.

So, what software do I use on a daily basis? Linux for an OS, WindowMaker for a window manager, mutt for email, vim for an editor, and lord forbid a closed source calendar called corporatetime. I believe that Oracle bought this, its difficult to find info about it anymore.

So what is my point? I get along just fine without M$ nor do I use any software that really has a M$ equivalent. Why do these topics come up all the time? Maybe we should be cloning M$'s slogan too. "Where do you want to go today?" It is a fitting question, right now the answer seems to be "Wherever M$ was yesterday?"

as always.. , Please use the mirrors, Check the change log.

err..wait wrong...thr....n/m