Slashdot Mirror

Hopefully, linus will accept the patch to allow 64-bit file lengths and offsets in the vfs.

If Apple uses the APSL, then the source code could not be used in Linux. I'm uncertain if Debian would accept any APSL submissions.

The issue to my mind is that Rendezvous needs popular adoption, and rapid acceptance would be best. If Apple has it in mind to emphasis Windows' network reliablity, then a GPL license would allow the technology to be integrated into Linux, and percolate into FreeBSD via ports. If Apple wants the most rapid adoption a source license can provide, the BSD license would be best, but then Microsoft would be free to embrace & extend.

This is why I root for the GPL in this case. Rendezvous is very cool technology, so Microsoft would either have to ignore it, attack its mindshare, impliment its own version, or bend knee to the GPL. Their own implimentation would be inferior for a time, and due to demand and early deployment, Microsoft would be unfairly judged as having an incompotent implimentation, rather than a primitive one. This would add pressure to move to non-Microsoft platforms. This is good for Apple, because non-Microsoft means Unix, and in many cases, that means MacOS X.

That's aside, however. I'm afraid that an APSL license would cause the source to stagnate except for the eyes of a few Wizards that learn from the implimentation and then develop their own (L)GPLed version.

I think I'm rambling.

Yes, I was assuming that the copyright of the kernel was currently held by Linus, and that it would revert to his estate if he died. However, in the COPYING file at kernel.org, Linus says that the linux kernel is "copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it", so I guess it isn't so clear-cut.

Maybe you've already tried mon, but except for the "learning" part, it's pretty smart about when to send an alert and when to keep it to itself (according to what you've defined in the config file), plus it has a nice interface for acknowledging and disabling watches, and can be interfaced to just about anything; I bet all your little scripts can be integrated into mon's monitor/alert system with little work. Right now, mon alerts me when servers stop responding, when the router's interfaces are down, or when there's a power failure. All the alerts are sent by e-mail , however, it also pages me if the power fails AND if it's earlier than 11 PM (don't want it to wake me up).

Also, since the config file is pretty easy and can use M4 to define time periods and addresses to send alerts to, I guess it wouldn't be so hard to write some kind of thingy to update M4 definitions according to its own observations of what you give a damn (or not) about.

I also keep writing tons of little shell scripts, I also recently built a little, ugly-but-reliable monitoring system which alerts me should a box go down in the middle of the night. I'm also try coding a few dependencies and hierarchical relations into it (if the nearest router goes down, don't complain about stuff past it, it'll obviously be unreachable too)

Maybe you already wrote that 2 years ago!
Why don't we start making available the stuff we've already done?

Anyway, a bit of karma whoring for meeee tooo :-)
Have a look at mon , a nice package directly off kernel.org, which is sooo nice that I'm actually scrapping my script in favour of it!

A lot of people do prefer RMS's OS to Linus's.

Personally I prefer SuperRescue http://www.kernel.org/pub/dist/superrescue/ for system recovery, works remarkably well on a system with a CD-ROM. Give it a shot :)

Take a look at H. Peter Anvin's SuperRescue - it's a full Red Hat system on a floppy. It uses zisofs compression to fit it all on a single CD.

Having a trojaned SSH build script was bad enough.

You *really* don't want a compromised kernel. Use the signatures.

• Lameness filters (It blocks perl code!)
• Unnessary posting delays. Hasnt taco learned to touch type? A lot of posts are typed in less than 20 seconds and it is a ANNOYING DELAY! 2 minute ban? Come on, so some are faster then others, big deal, some people have more to say than others.
• Broken moderation system, The whole point is to sort the gems from the crap, yet a lot of posts designed to make a LIVELY DISCUSSION are MODERATED as flamebait! Come on, not everyone likes X, but just because some one bashes it dosent mean its Flamebait. Flame bait is more useful for DIRECT INSULTS and not legitmate discussions.

• Crapfloods, a meaningless flood of random letters or text, which the lameness filter does a crappy job at trying to stop, besides trolls have written tools using the opensource slashcode to generate crapfloods which bypass the filter.
• Links to offensive websites, the most common one is known as http://www.goatse.cx, a awful site which shows a bleeding anus being stretched on the front page. Trolls sneak these links in by posting messages that look legitimate, but infact are sneaky redirects to the site. Common examples include rd.yahoo.com, www.linux-kernel.tk, goatsex.cjb.net, and googles "Im feeling lucky".
• Trying to break slashdot, this is actually a good thing, as it helps test slashdot for bugs. Famous examples include the goatse.cx javascript pop-up, the pagewidening post and the browser crashing post!

uh, i think they did.

This fellow seems to pronouce it that way too.

Er. Not quite correct:

-rw-r--r-- 1 korg korg 131967 Jun 25 18:53 patch-2.0.40-rc6.bz2
-rw-r--r-- 1 korg korg 248 Jun 25 18:53 patch-2.0.40-rc6.bz2.sign
-rw-r--r-- 1 korg korg 157277 Jun 25 18:53 patch-2.0.40-rc6.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 korg korg 248 Jun 25 18:53 patch-2.0.40-rc6.gz.sign

So the latest release candidate for 2.0.40 was only released back in June. Doesn't look dead to me.

No need for digging, it's all there:-).

Stop playing with your crappy motherboards and get a life! No one cares if you can get a zillion fps on quake with this crap! Now do something important, like Like recompiling your kernel!

anyone who has anything to do with a standards body nowadays know's that people try and hijack standards so their tech/patent gets into it

this way if you implement the standard you have to pay

you can't have an opensource MPEG 4 without paying 3million bucks when you distribute it and they call that a standard

ok real hardware and software

in terms of a kernel their is in My Humble Opinion

Linux

Open BSD

netbsd for every arch under the sun (joke included)

then we have the problem of hardware

Opencores provides some of the effort BUT my favorate is

LEON-1 VHDL model
- Functional SPARC compatible processor core integer unit. Runs on Altera, Mietec, Temic MG2, Xilinx. Developed for space missions. Implemented as a highly configurable, synthesisable GPL VHDL model.

Altera 10K200E FPGA or Xilinx XCV300 enable this you can also get a LCD and keyboard AMBA devices from www.gaisler.com

what I would like is a machine that you could say that the whole thing is opensource

regards

john jones

check out superrescue

I guess using that as a base, it wouldn't be too hard to create a bsd system or other.

If you still want to create your own system from scratch, isolinux is helpful. It takes care of the booting. The only other thing you would have to manage is to mount a ramdisk for /var and maybe /etc (anything that needs rw).

have fun :)

We have recently done just this using the Linux Virtual Server Project, and it has turned out very well. Just be prepared to read a lot of documentation.

Basically, you patch a stock Linux kernel and use a tool similar to ipchains to establish virtual services. These services forward requests to your back-end real servers according to a flexible ruleset that you design.

You can use NAT to hide the real servers from the Internet if you like. This allows you to use most any web server you like (such as IIS), but more fancy routing tricks can be done with Unix or Linux servers for even better results. We use NAT at our site (university EE department) and it can handle more load than we will ever receive -- our objective is high-availability. Also, you can use different methods for different server clusters on the same director (e.g. tunneling tricks for Linux apache servers, and less magic for IIS).

And LVS can be set up such that once a user connects to a particular server, his subsequent connections go back to the same server.

Also, you can use freely-available third-party tools like Mon to watch your real servers for failure and dequeue them, page you, etc. etc. The bottom line is, since you are using Free tools to do this project, you are limited by your imagination as to what you can do with your cluster.

I have been very happy with the result. And so have many others. If you want to hear big names, LVS is used by linux.com, Sourceforge, zope.org, VA Systems, and RealNetworks, according to their deployment page.

• LVS Documentation
• Mini-HOWTO
• Full HOWTO

In the staff section you say you have a neurosurgeon on payroll. I can't possibly imagine what job he/she has, except for operating on linux-machines with hart problems (yes, linux has a hart!).

Good thing you're talking about LUnix users and not Linux users.

Hell, same thing for just about any skilled work that combines technical expertise with creativity EXCEPT FOR PROGRAMMING.You never even tried to look around for musicians, mappers, texture painters, modelers and animators that put their work on the net for free did you?

If you look at the work that went into some of the commercial quakeIII engine games (sof-ii,jediknight-ii,startrek something) then you will know that there are people out there who can do more and better in a three to ten people teams in their spare time!
The process of going to good gpl games will be in two steps:
- getting (gamecontent commercial like quake 1/2?) games with sufficient gameplay to iron out the bugs in the engine, get the physics for gameplay that feels good and get the and tools to build for it

- getting the current hl/ut/q3a modders to come to the new engine and build good games from scratch, they have what it takes (just play some of the free single player half-life maps and look at the models build for half-life multiplayer mods)

No "financial incentive"? Well some people think there is not reason to write gpl code for free and therefore there will never be any good gpl code, I dont think this is the case and looking at the mappers and animators working on all of the populair mods out there who work mostly becouse they know their work will get spotted and get them a job I have high hopes of games equivalent in size to the current mods getting made available for free as in beer.

btw: When you go looking for programmers you can find them on every street corner (although not linus level ofcourse) but when you want people who know how to make games where do you look? The best of the modding community has proven to be a great place to start your search, moddelers and mappers know that!

As someone involved in many different activities, do you have cohesive social groups? That is, do the people from, say, your motorcycle-riding friends develop/use linux as well? (Or does your wife know about your dirty little secret? :P) I'm interested in knowing what your social ties are, being as it seems you are a fairly active individual.

don't you understand anything about how slashdot works? i mean, they cover the usual geeky tech things, but there are are number of things that always get the spotlight.. they are:
1. linux kernels
2. debian news
3. kde news
4. mozilla news

on slashdot, if you disagree with any of the above 4 topics, the bot-moderators automatically flamebait your ass into oblivion...

Yes, but, it has not been utterly convincing before as it has had "experimental" status until the development version 2.5.14 which was released 05-May-2002. That's why I believe 2.6 will be what really makes the difference. Bluetooth has worked quite well for quite some time in Linux, but if you are making a decision for using that in a embedded device, you are likely to avoid anything "experimental" as the development project probably is an experiment already by itself :)

<clip> in 2.5.14 Bluetooth support (no longer experimental!) (Maxim Krasnyansky, Bluetooth team) <clip>

Believe it or not, some people ENJOY hearing about the development kernel releases.

Yes - but the same people can easily visit www.kernel.org every day.

If they did visit kernel.org regularly, they'd have been running the 2.5.19 kernel two days ago.

Get linux! Its way better
Get the latest kernels

Stable : 2.4.18
Unstable : 2.5.19
GNU Turd : 0.13
NEVER USE SOFTWARE LESS THAN 1.0!

Gnu turd is so crap, thats why they leach on mr torvolds kerenel which is 2000000000000000000000000000000000 times better!

Anyone who CARES about development version kernels probably monitors kernel.org on a more-than-regular basis!!! No one else cares! Is this some sort of scheme to fool people into installing development kernels to make themselves feel 'cool'?? Please explain, thanks.

Do we really need /. to let us know when a kernel is released? Especially the development kernels? Everyone who wants to know should be on the linux-kernel-announce mailing list anyway.

Anyone wanna start betting when the dev kernel will surpass the stable kernel? 3 versions to go....

It's really not that fantastic. 2.5 will probably go pretty high. The 2.3 kernel went to 2.3.51 before it jumped to 2.3.99 (look here).

It will be interesting how much work goes into 2.5 before 2.6.0 is released. Then we'll be able to start comparing what's new to 2.4.x. It is interesting that we're at 2.4.19 when the 2.2. kernel is at 2.2.20, IMHO.

There has been a fair number of posts about whether or not Java is really an "Open-Standard". The first thing to remember is where this article originates, Business 2.0.

Taking that into account, Java is an open standard. Are there other compilers for Java? Yes. Are there multiple interpreters for Java? Yes. Is the standard published on how it works? Yes (Addison-Wesely publishes several books on it). So, for the average intended reader of business 2.0, Java is an open standard.

I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but something doesn't have to be controlled by an international standards organization to be open.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go prepare for flames as I've posted something that people are going to have problems with.

So ill post it here!
Triple Kernel Release
Linux kernels 2.5.13, 2.4.19 and 2.0.40 Released!
Its a triple relase today. Download it here Don't forget the mirrors, and the patches ;)

Q. How does the PC owner transfer their license rights for the operating system?
A. The GPL can be found here.

Q. What if the donor can't find the backup CDs, End-Use License Agreement, End-User manual and the Certificate of Authenticity? Can they still donate the PC and operating system?
A. It can be downloaded from here

- [grunby]

nothing starts out on top. I can think of a few other projects that started out on the weak side but through the long process of trial and error and hard work, eventually proved to be worthwile.

The Bill of Rights and Constitution protect individual liberties from the government, not the "right" to steal music, so even considering constitutional arguments with regard to copying music makes no sense.

Most people would consider it an individual liberty to be able to use what they paid for in any way the choose, whether it be ripping a CD to mp3, ripping a DVD and encoding to some other format (requiring DeCSS), or just owning a computer that has an unrestricted memcpy() . It's considered a basic right to bear arms, so are you telling me it's not, to own something that can copy bits?

Reasonable people agree that the creator of a work should compensated for his efforts, hence copyright - but it has no basis in the constitution.

First, who exactly decides what "reasonable people" are? Second, copyright was originally more "reasonable" at a 7 year term, then more "reasonable people" came along and now look where we're at. Finally, "it has no basis in the constitution" is just wrong, because the Constitution is the sole source of authority for the Federal Government to make laws. If copyright didn't come from the Constitution, then it is an illegal law.

MegaCorp Inc. wants everything regulated, which is never going to happen.

Hellooo, DMCA, SSSCA. We said the former was "never going to happen", and it did. The latter... won't pass this year, maybe. The future is not a very bright one, though.

Slashdot types want everything free as in beer, which doesn't encourage creation.

Uh, hello, first off "Slashdot types" (of which I believe I qualify) likely want more: everything free as in liberty; free as in beer is just a nice extra. This "doesn't encourage creation"? What do you call these:

• The Linux kernel. (Free as in beer, liberty)
• Most of the software on Freshmeat.
• All of the software on SourceForge.
• The Debian, RedHat, and multitudes of other distributions, some of which make money, some of which are purely nonprofit.
• All the other free software not mentioned here.
• All the music written and art created (and on record) for thousands of years done for whatever reason besides making a buck. (Hint: being an artist for a living was traditionally very hard, and few made it.) I personally know a number of people who write music purely because they enjoy doing it. If this isn't creativity, what is?

So until someone finds a decent way of paying artists aside from CDs, books, etc. people are going to keep stealing digital things because it is a better way to distribute.

Or maybe that business model just isn't going to work anymore, so they better get a different job or find a different way to make money. There is no guaranteed individual right to make money on a given venture. The reason we originally had the copyright was to further society, not line corporate pockets. Artists can control their work, possibly making money for a short period of time, then work is returned to the public domain. That's not how it works anymore.

As usual, the extremes on either side of the argument need to be tempered to find a workable solution. And it isn't going to be found in the Constitution.

No. The end has already been determined. Like a Myrddraal, MegaCorp Inc. has already been killed, but they're too dumb to realize it, and it doesn't mean they're not still dangerous (see DMCA and SSSCA).

I believe Mingo's patches are out of date now (or did I read somewhere that they've been taken over by Andrew Morton?) Either way, Andrew's page has current patches:

http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/schedlat.html#do wnloads

As for preempt, there's:

http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/pree mpt-kernel/v2.4/

I used preempt-kernel-rml-2.4.18-2.patch, and 2.4.18-rc1-low-latency.patch with kernel 2.4.18.

(I was willing to go all adventurous and throw in the O(1) scheduler too, but that didn't patch without errors so I skipped it.)

Good hacking.

I believe Mingo's patches are out of date now (or did I read somewhere that they've been taken over by Andrew Morton?) Either way, Andrew's page has current patches:

http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/schedlat.html#do wnloads

As for preempt, there's:

http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml/pree mpt-kernel/v2.4/

I used preempt-kernel-rml-2.4.18-2.patch, and 2.4.18-rc1-low-latency.patch with kernel 2.4.18.

(I was willing to go all adventurous and throw in the O(1) scheduler too, but that didn't patch without errors so I skipped it.)

Good hacking.

I am so gaaaaaaay ! Just look at my asshole !.

LoOoOoOOoOoL!

It is being sponsored by DARPA.

Cool stuff. They built it with security in mind and it runs under:
Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD and Solaris.

First, I wanted to give my view of the results - what they mean and what that means. Note there are multiple notions of latency performance. Average latency and worst-case latency, among others, but those are most important. This test measured worst-case latency. Both are important - for user experience average case is very important and for real-time applications worst-case is very important.

It is not a surprise the low-latency patches scored better, or that the ideal scenario was using both. The preemptive kernel patch is not capable of fixing most of the worst-case latencies. This is because, since we can not preempt while holding a lock, any long durations where locks are held now become our worst-case latencies. We have a tool, preempt-stats, that helps us find these. With the preempt-kernel, however, average case latency is incredibly low. Often measured around 0.5-1.5 ms. Worst-case depends on your workload, and varies under both patches.

Now, the results don't mention average case (which is fine), but keep in mind with preempt-kernel it is much lower. The good thing about these results are that it does indeed show that certain areas have long-held locks and the preempt-kernel does nothing about them. Thus a combination of both gives an excellent average latency while tackling some of the long-held locks. Note it is actually best to use my lock-break patch in lieu of low-latency in combination of with preempt-kernel, as they are designed and optimal for each other (lock-break is based on Andrew's low-latency).

So what is the future? preempt-kernel is now in 2.5 and, as has been mentioned, Andrew and I are working on the worst-case latencies that still exist. Despite what has been mentioned here, however, we are not going to adopt a low-latency/lock-break explicit schedule and lock-breaking approach. We are going to rewrite algorithms, improve lock semantics, etc. to lower lock-held times. That is the ease and cleanliness of the preemptive kernel approach: no more hackery and such to lower latency in problem areas. Now we can cleanly fix them and voila: preemption takes over and gives us perfect response. I did some lseek cleanup in 2.5 (removed the BKL from generic_file_llseek and pushed the responsibility for locking into the other lseek methods) and this reduced latency during lseek operations -- a good example.

So that is the plan ... it is going to be fun.

First, I wanted to give my view of the results - what they mean and what that means. Note there are multiple notions of latency performance. Average latency and worst-case latency, among others, but those are most important. This test measured worst-case latency. Both are important - for user experience average case is very important and for real-time applications worst-case is very important.

It is not a surprise the low-latency patches scored better, or that the ideal scenario was using both. The preemptive kernel patch is not capable of fixing most of the worst-case latencies. This is because, since we can not preempt while holding a lock, any long durations where locks are held now become our worst-case latencies. We have a tool, preempt-stats, that helps us find these. With the preempt-kernel, however, average case latency is incredibly low. Often measured around 0.5-1.5 ms. Worst-case depends on your workload, and varies under both patches.

Now, the results don't mention average case (which is fine), but keep in mind with preempt-kernel it is much lower. The good thing about these results are that it does indeed show that certain areas have long-held locks and the preempt-kernel does nothing about them. Thus a combination of both gives an excellent average latency while tackling some of the long-held locks. Note it is actually best to use my lock-break patch in lieu of low-latency in combination of with preempt-kernel, as they are designed and optimal for each other (lock-break is based on Andrew's low-latency).

So what is the future? preempt-kernel is now in 2.5 and, as has been mentioned, Andrew and I are working on the worst-case latencies that still exist. Despite what has been mentioned here, however, we are not going to adopt a low-latency/lock-break explicit schedule and lock-breaking approach. We are going to rewrite algorithms, improve lock semantics, etc. to lower lock-held times. That is the ease and cleanliness of the preemptive kernel approach: no more hackery and such to lower latency in problem areas. Now we can cleanly fix them and voila: preemption takes over and gives us perfect response. I did some lseek cleanup in 2.5 (removed the BKL from generic_file_llseek and pushed the responsibility for locking into the other lseek methods) and this reduced latency during lseek operations -- a good example.

So that is the plan ... it is going to be fun.

When I want a boot disk I use SuperRescue. Nowa days every one has a cd burnner and CDRs are dirt cheap. Besides when was the last time you could find a blank floppy in less then 10 minutes?

Did you miss all the 2.4 Linux VM Stories?

I suggest build/installing the latest kernel with the aa VM (the default VM, since 2.4.10). If you still have VM (Swap) problems then go get the latest rmap VM patch and try that.

The kernel VM (Virtual Machine) is what manages memory and sawp, btw.

And if u did miss all the VM stories, a summery:
at the start of 2.4 a new fancy mv was put in to action, using something known as reverse mapping. this was very clever but it wasn't quite ready and there were teathing troubles then suddenly (2.4.10) Linus switched VM to one similar to that of 2.3 (with some updates and a few features from the previous 2.4 VM) This started a big fight, which caused concerns (such that it may split the linux comunity)

which is better i dont know some swer by one other swer the other. but unless ur using RH 2.4.9 kernel i would not recommend a pre 2.4.10 kernel.

however you may need to experiment which is best the VM now in 2.4 (to stay) or rmap, u should try both and see

steps
Install 2.4.[17,18,19]
try it
if it fails u try the rmap patch

To build it, get the linux-2.4.17.tar.gz kernel, patch it to linux-2.4.18-pre9, then patch again with patch-2.4.18-pre9-mjc2. Then build and use the kernel. Check recent (ie. 2002 ) kernel archives to read discussion of this and other related patches, if desired.

To build it, get the linux-2.4.17.tar.gz kernel, patch it to linux-2.4.18-pre9, then patch again with patch-2.4.18-pre9-mjc2. Then build and use the kernel. Check recent (ie. 2002 ) kernel archives to read discussion of this and other related patches, if desired.

To build it, get the linux-2.4.17.tar.gz kernel, patch it to linux-2.4.18-pre9, then patch again with patch-2.4.18-pre9-mjc2. Then build and use the kernel. Check recent (ie. 2002 ) kernel archives to read discussion of this and other related patches, if desired.

The best way to handle this(or at least the best way I handled a similar situation) is to combine Robert Love's Preempt patch and Ingo's Scheduler.
They will significant increase high load user performance, keeps the system from running away with itself. If your feeling really, adventuresome you could also throw in Rik's Rmap VM...I have done very little testing with it, but I hear alot of reports that it helps.
there are all available in the authors respective directories on Kernel.org riel,rml,mingo

Yeah, not like there are any other examples of open source software based on proprietry software.

tlhf

xxx

Also, your linked article talks about a compiler which compiles itself. IE, GCC recognising GCC. Having GCC regocnise BCC, VC++, et al would be insanly difficult. Even more so in this case as Mono is being released after the Microsoft compiler.

"What is Linux?

"Linux is a clone of the operating system Unix, written from scratch by Linus Torvalds with assistance from a loosely-knit team of hackers across the Net. It aims towards POSIX and Single UNIX Specification compliance."

UNIX is a registered trademark of the Open Group.

UNIX is defined by them as follows:
"UNIX ® - the worldwide Single UNIX Specification integrating X/Open Company's XPG4, IEEE's POSIX Standards and ISO C. Through continual evolution, the Single UNIX Specification is the defacto and dejure standard definition for the UNIX system application programming interfaces.
"The majority of commercial vendors have registered UNIX® products, with most at the UNIX 95 level and newer products registering for UNIX 98."

Only products listed on their product registration pages can be branded as UNIX. GNU (GNU's not UNIX) and Linux could, together with particular hardware, become certified UNIX, but first someone would have to pay the Open Group and demonstrate standards compliance.

It would be very easy for Apple to get MacOS certified on Power Macintosh computers, but they have yet to do so according to Open Group.