Slashdot Mirror
Wonderful World Of Linux 2.4 - Final Candidate
EngrBohn writes "Joe Pranevich has posted the latest & greatest Wonderful World of Linux 2.4 at LinuxToday. 'In the beginning, there was Linus and his 386 ... Several years and many thousands of lines of code later, Linux 2.2 was released ... Linus (and company) continued to hack away at the Linux OS and the 2.4 release of the Linux kernel is nearing completion. Submitted for your approval, this document describes some of the new features in Linux 2.4.'" Helps sort out rumors, half-truths and innuendo. I hope Joe's estimate is conservative on getting CDs shipping with point-four; usually it seems like the distro houses are pretty swift to incorporate.
Remember the Pentium bug was even less likely to affect you, but people didn't accept that becouse the bug was built in, and that made the thing upredictable under normal circumstances.
I'm posting as an AC because I'm about to get flamed... but...
I remember late in 1999 when Linus and Cox were promising kernel 2.4 before the official release of Windows 2000. That day has come and gone, and we still don't have 2.4. In the past, we as a community flame Microsoft for such promises, calling their products "vaporware", yet we did not do the same with our beloved Torvalds when his dates passed.
Now, is this due to the nature of corporations - whose promises are presumably under their control and payroll vs Open Source projects that seem to be improved in spurts - or are we all hypocrites?
That being said, it should be known that I use Linux solely [1] on an SMP machine and I am dying for the new 2.4 kernel.
[1] Well, I did boot w98SE yesterday - in VMWare.
No, 2.4 is not released yet. This is a document intended to help people understand the 2.4 kernel when it is released. The author did the same thing for the 2.2 kernel and (if I recall correctly) the 2.0 kernel as well. At this point, it's no secret what will and won't be in the kernel, so might as well work on the documentation now.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
http://kurt.andover.net/Reiser -filesystem-HOWTO.html
Reiser driver and utils are still in development, and there's been some flamage on the kernel-dev list over it, but hey, works for me!
Kernel developers cannot fix unreported bugs....
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
The kernel httpd stuff is very simplified. It's not like they're merging Apache into the kernel source here. Since it is very lean and limited in functionality to providing simple, static content, the potential for instability is minimized. For people using their Linux systems for serving up static web content, this definitely makes things faster and more efficient.
And you don't have to "un-compile" it. You have to explicitely turn it on if you want to use it. If you don't want the feature, leave the damn thing turned off when building your kernel.
Redhat is slower than anybody, in that I can't remember the last time I got in to ftp.redhat.com. I usually use ftp.freesoftware.com (formerly ftp.cdrom.com) although they don't have redhat 6.2 yet. They are usually up to date, available(5000 users) and fast(1Gbps pipe to the internet).
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I've got to ask two questions.
;-)
First, (I don't know what "SOAP" refers too..so
won't go there..) but why does XML have to be supported by the kernel? This is as User Space an item as I can imagine.
Second - what does RMS have to do with release of a Linux kernel? (Answer - nothing
Have you compiled your kernel today??
2.3 boots just fine on my laptop, but when I move it to the iopener, it fails to find the partitions on
Running an Iopener will be a major hurdle to the acceptance of 2.4. At least in my house.
Anybody had this same problem, or better yet, a solution?
---
Get back to me when 2.4.20 comes out :)
I guess it all comes down to the long-term goals. Mandrake and RedHat, being for-profit companies are driven by the market they cater to to provide the latest stuff in their distribution. Debian has the goal of providing a free, stable Linux, even if it's not up-to-date.
But look at the "current" stable Debian distribution. It's so horribly outdated, it's beyond the "less flashy" area and getting into "less useful". There are many things that I _need_ to be able to do with my Debian boxes that I have no choice but to run potato or some other distro.
--
XFree86 4.0 has been released
glibc 2.1.3 has been released
apache 1.3.12 has been released
Linux 2.4.0 might get released
i love Debian, but they have the worst timing...
--
How easy is it to migrate from 2.2.x to 2.4 (well, 2.3.99pre, in this case)? Can I just download source, compile and go like I can with current 2.2 kernels? Or are other crucial pieces of software going to have to be upgraded as well?
Jay (=
As is obvious to everybody with one or more neurons firing, the previous poster was not Linus Torvalds, but YADTAST (Yet Another Dummer Than A Stump Troll).
/usr/include.
That having been said, the original poster is probably referring to the 'THIS_MODULE' undeclared here error message a number of us ran into, the solution to which is here.
In short, you need to #include linux/modules.h just before the first #include asm/.. statement. An annoying buglet in the pre-release code, but easy enough to find the answer at deja.com, altavista.com, or by grepping on the contents of
At the very least, a bug report gets (at this point, has gotten) the bug fixed.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It would be nice if Linux got some efficient, simple user-space file system support. Until then, I think the best bet is still to put things into the kernel.
I'm not an expert, but from my experience, there will be a few important utilities that you'll want to upgrade to get a stable system. I believe the README has a list of required software; if you check it against what you have you'll see what you would need to upgrade. It shouldn't be very complicated, but you might be better off sticking with 2.2 until your distro makes the switch.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
Maybe I should just break down and replace my 8-year old drives, but in the meantime software RAID-5 is an economical way to weather the frequent drive failures.
Unfortunately, it does not seem to be included in the pre3 kernel. Anyone know what's going on with this?
How old is Linux?
cpeterso
When will that be implemented :)
Check out http://www.openh323.org/
There's also commercial solutions such as phonepatch (which works really well, and gives you a 30 day trial). There's a web interface for configure and everything... alas, my license ran out back in Jan...
On the plus side, Dialpad links to ipmasq patches that let it work properly... pretty nifty...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Thank you SO much. You just saved me hours of work. I was compiling the code as I read your info. The work that I am doing is using Sys V IPC heavly. Thanks again!
/etc/fstab. Because 4.0 uses SHM. Here is a printout of an ipcs call on my Linux box...
By the way anybody using XFree86 4.0 should include your adition to the
[rreich@orcana rreich]$ ipcs
------ Shared Memory Segments --------
key shmid owner perms bytes nattch status
0x00000000 98305 root 644 4096 5 dest
0x00000000 131074 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 1376259 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 1409028 root 644 4096 3 dest
0x00000000 1441797 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 5210118 root 644 4096 6 dest
0x00000000 5242887 root 644 4096 10 dest
0x00000000 5275656 root 644 4096 6 dest
0x00000000 18710537 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 18743306 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 18776075 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 18808844 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 18841613 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 19169294 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 19202063 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 19234832 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 19365905 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 19300370 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 19398675 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 19922964 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 19955733 root 644 4096 2 dest
0x00000000 20578326 root 644 4096 2 dest
------ Semaphore Arrays --------
key semid owner perms nsems status
------ Message Queues --------
key msqid owner perms used-bytes messages
... all of the SHM entries are for XFree86 4.0. They don't show up if you don't include the stuff in the fstab.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.
Actually, BeOS uses gcc was well. RMS isn't on Be's case.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Want to work at Transmeta? Hedgefund.net? AT&T?
Can your IM do this?
Re: USB
Try buying a Camera for your PC that ISNT USB nowadays.. not to mention that within a couple of years i can see USB replacing the Gameport Joystick for a joke, along with PS/2.
"this has got to be a late april fool's prank -- if not, add this to the heap of reasons not to execute binary-only code..."
Or don't run as root.
I definately agree with you, though. I really hope that you cannot write your own microcode. Screw up and you can go buy a new processor.
------
Oh in general I agree. I usually refer to the
OS I run as just "linux". However...I don't think
its silly to use GNU/Linux either.
However, I am a definite supporter of what GNU
and the FSF stand for. While I don't see the need
to make everyone call it "GNU Linux", I do think
the GNU proect deserves some credit.
As far as being major parts of the OS...I don't
use GNOME or KDE (blah). I spend most of my days
in an ETerm typeing into vi and pushing files
around. I think all of those things are fairly
major parts of the OS.
In any case...It doesn't really matter what you
call it. I just favor GNU/Linux for the reasons
that it gives credit to the FSF, and it makes
the note that Linux is just a kernel...there is
alot more to the system than that.
Is it silly? I don't think so. Is it silly to
argue about? yes it is. (tho...I kind of enjoy
arguing over stupid things)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I don't disagree. Just want to point out that none of this would have been possible without the kernel. It's the kernel that determines what you can and cannot do.
(Of course, the GNU stuff was written pretty much without that kernel, on other Unices.)
This is a note/plea to the users out there who are reluctant to submit bug reports. First, you must all realize that you are not dealing with Microsoft, or any other large corporation for that matter. While it may seem to you like submitting a bug report will be a waste of your time ("they'll never read it / do anything about it"), it is not. Bug reports are acted upon if they possibly can be, and everyone's bug reports are extremely valuble. The kernel development people (and anyone developing software for linux, for the matter) are very receptive to bug reports, and really need them to help them improve their software. 2.4 is only (relatively) close today because of peoples' bug reports. Submitting reports is not a waste of your time. You'll be helping yourself (when the bug is fixed), and you'll be helping all of us. So please, don't think it's a waste, or that nothing's going to be done. While calling MS with a bug report may be a waste of your time, in this case it isn't.
I know it won't be included in the kernel for 2.4, but is there a version of it ported to 2.3.x? I took the available patches and tried applying them, but too much of the kernel fs internals have changed. So, before I sit down for several hours trying to understand everything about filesystems in the kernel, has anyone already done it? I really want to try 2.4, but I just can't go back to ext2. Once you've tasted it, there is no other. ;)
I use CFS - Cryptographic Filesystem, personally.
Admittedly, this still leaves you vulnerable to the script kiddie that gets in and can get at /crypt; that is probably still nearly as protectable as kernel-based approaches...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. They can produce a Linux distribution on CD or DVD and have absolutely NO OBLIGATION under the GPL to give ISOs or tarballs away for free. Their only obligation is to release the source to any GPLed binaries they distribute.
We created some Wonderful 2.4 HOWTOs:
Linux Volume Management - or 'How do I grow my filesystem by buying more disks'
Linux Advanced Routing and Traffic Shaping or 'How do I run my internet exchange with nothing but Linux and keep bandwidt for myself
The DevFS FAQ is here, and if you read it you'll see that the changes are ALOT deeper then just the names. It goes as far as, IIRC, actually ELIMENATING the age old idea of major and minor numbers. Regardless, read the FAQ it's intresting :)
Any mention of filesystem crypto? Those of you with near terabyte collections of mp3's *ahem* might be interested in this.. that means that "the man" will have a hard time getting into your goodies when the plug gets pulled, or when joe skript kiddie decides it's time for some fun with the latest edition of Redhat.
So, what's the story? Easy filesystem crypto? Where easy == transparent..
Kudos!
..don't panic
If it does maybe then people will take Linux seriously on the desktop. If it doesn't work soon Linux is doomed to a life among us geeks. I love Linux, but right now I would NOT want to even dream of having Linux on my mom's computer. I have enough trouble supporting all the stupid questions I get for Winows. Can you imagine telling Id10T users how to log on as root to run fsck because they turned the power instead of typing halt. Maybe 2.4 will help the learning curve in some ways.
My current workstation:
/etc/fstab: /var/shm shm defaults 0 0
/dev fs, there's many (interesting) files to play with, the cooles imho being /dev/microcode. You can basically rewrite the binary data built in to your processor. While i dont think 'cat /dev/random > /dev/microcode' would be such a good idea, there's a good page with info on this here
nooky:~$ uname -rmpv
2.3.99-pre4 #4 SMP Thu Mar 30 13:14:58 PST 2000 i686 unknown
I've been using the 2.3 series since 2.3.32, and have had tremendous success with them. Several things to note that _weren't_ in the article:
1) sysvipc has changed. if you use anything that depends on shm, you'll need to add this to your
none
2) Along with the new
--BlueLines "The cost of living hasn't affected it's popularity." -anonymous
This is a free minix-like kernel for i386(+) based AT-machines. Full
:-)
...)
source is included, and this source has been used to produce a running
kernel on two different machines. Currently there are no kernel
binaries for public viewing, as they have to be recompiled for different
machines. You need to compile it with gcc (I use 1.40, don't know if
1.37.1 will handle all __asm__-directives), after having changed the
relevant configuration file(s).
As the version number (0.01) suggests this is not a mature product.
Currently only a subset of AT-hardware is supported (hard-disk, screen,
keyboard and serial lines), and some of the system calls are not yet
fully implemented (notably mount/umount aren't even implemented). See
comments or readme's in the code.
This version is also meant mostly for reading - ie if you are interested
in how the system looks like currently. It will compile and produce a
working kernel, and though I will help in any way I can to get it
working on your machine (mail me), it isn't really supported. Changes
are frequent, and the first "production" version will probably differ
wildly from this pre-alpha-release.
Hardware needed for running linux:
- 386 AT
- VGA/EGA screen
- AT-type harddisk controller (IDE is fine)
- Finnish keyboard (oh, you can use a US keyboard, but not
without some practise
The Finnish keyboard is hard-wired, and as I don't have a US one I
cannot change it without major problems. See kernel/keyboard.s for
details. If anybody is willing to make an even partial port, I'd be
grateful. Shouldn't be too hard, as it's tabledriven (it's assembler
though, so
Although linux is a complete kernel, and uses no code from minix or
other sources, almost none of the support routines have yet been coded.
Thus you currently need minix to bootstrap the system. It might be
possible to use the free minix demo-disk to make a filesystem and run
linux without having minix, but I don't know...
------------
a funny comment: 1 karma
an insightful comment: 1 karma
a good old-fashioned flame: priceless
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
I find this has everything to do with the particular distribution's target audience.
For instance, with Mandrake you see shipments of not only the latest stable kernel, but pratically all of the available patches towards the next stable release already applied. Who is Mandrake's target audience? Desktop users - or at least the Desktop/Workstation sector is where you'll find many of the Mandrake installations. Mandrake is known for it's ease-of-use and execellent default window manager settings. I would predict that many of the desktop/gamer/cutting edge-targetted distributions will be shipping with 2.4 shortly after it becomes available.
The more corporate-oriented distributions will quite likely wait until 2.4 has had a chance to stabelize a bit longer, especially the distributions targetted at servers - Redhat for instance, and probably Caldera and Corel as well.
I further predict that the distributions that aren't shipping with 2.4 running by default will at least include a 2.4-compiled kernel available for install at some point during the installation process - not only so that they are not perceived as "behind the pack" but also to get some feedback from their userbase as to where problems have cropped up.
Also bear in mind that XFree 4.0 was released recently, and at this point can't be considered fully stable/complete since many video card drivers have not been released yet, and there has not be enough time to throughly test it. Many distributions will wait for their next point-oh release until after 2.4 and XFree 4.0 have stabilized somewhat
And of course, some distributions like -ahem- Debian will simply wait until the next stable kernel is just around the corner before a release in say... q1 2001 (c:
Ouch! Bruce... put down that stick! I was just kidding... ouch!
-Cycon
Your Brain + EEG + LEGO Robots = Brainstorms
One of the things that has worried me about this 2.4 freeze was a number of features that were added last minute (during the 2.3.99 series). One of these such features was a multilink implementation by Paul Mackerras.
What was disturbing about this feature add is that several people had been working on other implementations of MLPPP for Linux for some time (including, but not limited to: The PPP Multilink Protocol (MP) for Linux, Chris's Multilink PPP for Linux, and Babylon (by Spellcaster)).
I am particularly touched by Chris Pascoe's e-mail:
What disturbes me is that I wrote Paul, the present PPP driver maintainer for Linux, asking him if he would like help testing his new MLPPP code before 2.4 final and if he has a new PPP daemon capable of using his new driver. I, and Chris Pascoe are still waiting for the reply. This seams very counter-productive to the open-source model of development. The last time I mailed Chris he said that we was going to get one of his friends to go knocking on Paul's door at the college where he resides to see if he is still alive...
Anybody heard more on PPP?
Anybody seen anymore recently added code during freeze time?
-AP