Slashdot Mirror
Serious Bug In 2.4.15/2.5.0
John Ineson writes: "There is a bug in the latest kernel releases, that causes fs corruption on umount. A lot of people have already been hit by this, so for now I suggest you hold fire on booting those new kernels. More dead-duck than greased-turkey. Two possible fixes are being discussed on linux-kernel."
Colin Bayer adds links to a story at the Register and Al Viro's fix. Update: 11/25 00:39 GMT by T : Tarkie writes "Linux 2.4.16-pre1 is out, as detailed at NewsForge. If you've been having the filesystem corruptions, might be worth a try so that 2.4.16 can be out ASAP!"
From the looks of the post this bug occurs regardless of filesystem. Is that accurate? or would certain fs's be unaffected, im guessing that it doesnt matter, anyone care to clarify that
Good thing we have alan cox who tries to keep his tree somewhat more stable. Anyone know if his kernels were affected?
No problems with this kernel pre release :)
Everyone wants a Tux in their life.
When are we going to start giving kernels to a QA team before releasing them?
I am not a lawyer. Do not take my words as legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney.
...how something like this could have creeped in, and be missed? Was it a last-minute change that just didn't have time for testing, or was it (bad)luck-of-the-draw that no one noticed it?
I recomment turning your computer off with the power switch or by unplugging it, after you've made sure you can boot an older kernel. Since umounting is done when you shut down cleanly, you don't want to do that.
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
for the brasilian guy, hum ?
Well, this is not the first, and probably it won't be the last too, dangerous boog in the 2.4 series. IIRC (too lazy today to check) 2.4.11 is marked as "do not use" in the kernel mirrors.
What ? Me, worry ?
You can find Andrea Arcangeli's fix at:n drea/kernels/v2.4/2.4.15aa1/00_iput-unmount-corrup tion-fix-1
ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/a
The users are the QA (why do you think Linus moved to 2.4 so early? To get more testers). If you don't like being a guinea pig, then wait about a week before moving to the newest kernel. Seriously, 7 days isn't that long, and all show-stoppers will have shown up long before then.
There is a patch available from Andrea Arcangeli that fixes the problem. The link is http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=100 658821112994&w=2
-kurt
Dude. I hate to say this, but Windows 2000, while it may crash more, doesn't hose you're filesystem nearly as often as Linux seems to these days. At what point do we get to start making the LinSux jokes?
PS> Don't flame me please. I just wiped Win2K off my harddrive this morning. Luckily, I downloaded the 2.4.15 tree but have been too lazy to compile it yet.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
just another reason why 2.2.20 is still the kernel of choice
Isn't the 2.4 branch supposed to be stable? You know, the one that doesn't eat your disk. I think that this kernel should have gotten a little more testing for bugs of the catastrophic nature before it was deemed fit for general consumption.
Turn it off with the power switch *when you're going to turn it off*. There's no need to panic and start shutting it down for no reason :). I think I'll keep my box up until 2.4.16 is released and just run 2.4.15 until then. FWIW, I've already rebooted a couple times with 2.4.15, so it obviously doesn't show up for everyone (or at least not every time).
Yet there's no snide commentary from the editors whenever something like this happens with Microsoft (M$ to all the haters) software.
Maybe you zealots will realize that nobody is perfect, and open-source is not necessarily better than closed-source.
This also makes a case for not announcing new kernels not slashdot (aka not freshmeat). Most people here are linux newbie wannabees so they're not the most qualified people to be running the latest and greatest kernels.
I've been running Linux since the 2.0 days (and I even went through part of 2.1 and 2.3), and I'm running 2.4.15 right now (and umounted a few times with it). And I have *never* had *any* FS corruption with Linux. Although to be fair, since I've never run Win2k, it hasn't hosed my FS yet either :). So I guess the score is Linux 0 - Windows 0 at this point (unless you count the Win98 CD Install as "Windows", in which case it's like Linux 0 - Windows 3, heh). Maybe I'm just a statistical anomoly *shrug*
Well a least it is more secure...
I hope /. dosent mangle this up too bad, but if it does:
0 658174003122&w=2
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=10
List: linux-kernel
Subject: Re: 2.4.15-pre9 breakage (inode.c)
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: 2001-11-24 5:55:42
[Download message RAW]
On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> --- 2.4.15pre9aa1/fs/inode.c.~1~ Thu Nov 22 20:48:23 2001
> +++ 2.4.15pre9aa1/fs/inode.c Sat Nov 24 06:30:20 2001
> @@ -1071,7 +1071,7 @@
> if (inode->i_state != I_CLEAR)
> BUG();
> } else {
> - if (!list_empty(&inode->i_hash) && sb && sb->s_root) {
> + if (!list_empty(&inode->i_hash)) {
> if (!(inode->i_state & (I_DIRTY|I_LOCK))) {
> list_del(&inode->i_list);
> list_add(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused);
I have to say that I like this patch better myself - the added tests are
not sensible, and just removing them seems to be the right thing.
Linus
No distro has used this buggy kernel yet. If Red Hat had already released its latest edition using 2.4.15 I could see your point. But at this point the only people who have upgraded to 2.4.15 are the power users who like living on the edge; there is no comparison to the closed-source world except possibly to Windows developers who constantly install the latest betas.
My post is not flamebait. It's an honest, legitimate question.
I am not a lawyer. Do not take my words as legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney.
This is a common misconception! 2.4 is *not* "stable"! It is "testing"! Well, now that it's split in two I suppose it can officially be called "stable" (what a bad start!), but I don't consider it stable (though I'm just a lowly AC). AFAIC, 2.2 = "stable" and 2.4 = "testing". In a month or so, things we'll change and we'll have 2.4 = "stable" and 2.5 = "experimental". Until 2.5 turns into 2.6/3.0, at which point it will be "testing", and the cycle continues :)
that a successful reboot of the system running the kernel is not in the regression suite. Does this error occur on every architecture?
The author has very valid advice. Yet, some moderator marked this post a "troll." That's like saying Click and Clack on NPR are opponents of the automobile industry.
I am not a lawyer. Do not take my words as legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult an attorney.
Come on guys, nobody is going to take linux seriously as long as problems like this -- or the VM saga -- keep popping up in supposedly stable kernels. FreeBSD has no trouble keeping separate -CURRENT and -STABLE trees; why can't linux do the same?
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
There's already a fix for this problem.
You have either not read the message correctly, or you are an anti-open source zealot.
In your face! I sat here and read all the flames to apple about the iTunes screw up, and here we are with one just as big and glaring from the kernel developers themselves.
Hypocrites!!!!!!!
...24-48 *minutes* is more like it ;). There are already a few patches out for it.
patching file fs/inode.c
patch: **** malformed patch at line 11: {
I'll just wait for 2.4.16 and 2.5.1
You assholes just keep showing your true colors
I may be wrong about this, but isn't that Brazillian chap Marcelo in charge of this tree now? Not a good start if it is him, but everybody is entitled to a cock up once in a while...
2.4.15 (stable): corrupted
2.5.0 (dev): corrupted
2.4.15-pre9: corrupted
2.4.13-ac8: corrupted
...
Where's Alan cox when we need him?
FS corruption is FS corruption, you can't justify it at all, especially since this is supposed to be a stable kernel. It can't be all that obscure if it's changed enough since the last revision to do damage now could it?
Welcome to "why not to grab every new piece of software as soon as it's released". Other examples include Apple's iTunes 2 and MS Windows 98 (first edition). Also works for hardware, and heck, even cars (first year of a new model is usually riddled with problems).
rooooar
people would be pointing and screaming and wringing their hands and making all kinds of horror-noises about the Gates Borg Collective.
Hypocritical.
Can someone give a joe-user guide to helping test new kernels?
moderators arent needed anymore. (no, im not trolling)
The last post in that thread is this one by Andrea Arcangeli sometime this morning and from the looks of things (if you read the entire thread) there is conflict between Alexander Viro and Andrea on which is the better solution.
Linus saying he prefers a patch on an initial viewing isn't the end of the situation for now. I'd suggesting waiting a week and revisiting the thread to find out what the final word was.
I have to wonder, with all the bizarre bugs that have been creeping into "stable" kernels... are they even being tested before release, or is Linus just slapping on some patches and putting out a new kernel as 2.4. instead of 2.4.-prewhatever?
The latter would seem to indicate frustration and burnout on his part.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
... is why there seems to exist this rampant tendency among Linux-folk to upgrade one's kernel constantly. Unless a new kernel solves a problem you have, there is no reason to upgrade.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
For those who have tried ext3 in 2.4.15:
/dev/whatever".
Make sure you have reset the journaling flag on your filesystems, because your older kernel will not mount an unclean ext3 volume.
Do a "tune2fs -O ^has_journal
You're joking right?
I'll bite. I'm bored.
>Lets see if the open source community can solve >a MAJOR file system bug in 24 hours. The same >amount of time Apple typically corrects its >problems.
There's already a patch. Oops!
>Boy, I feel sorry for anyone that lost its data >to an open source OS.
Nobody did. Hell, a forced fsck fixes a corrupted fs right up, and the patch is already out. Problem solved.
>Makes the proprietary Mac OS X look real nice >right now. Its never has had a file system bug >of this magnitude. Now that I think about it >neither has Microsoft.
The FAT filesystem design itself is a design flaw. Micros~1?
>Man it must suck to be a 2.4-2.5 kernel user >right now.
No, it doesn't, but thanks for inquiring.
>So much for the superiority of Open Source.
When has Microsoft announced a major flaw and fixed it in so little time? Have you forgotten how they've kept secret MAJOR bugs until other companies finally revealed them? Oops!
>Just think, Red Hat's offer to install Linux in >every classroom could have changed the standard >excuse, "The dog ate my homework" to "The Linux >corrupted my homework files".
Heh. That was actually kind of funny.
>Oops! I said something negative about GNU/Linux, >guess this will be modded down.
Nobody has a problem with constructive criticism. But you're obviously just trying to push some buttons because you need the attention for whatever reasons.
- bonch
stay animated
If you read the posts it clearly states that they didn't have time to test.
I'm sorry but I don't remember a single fs corruption bug as serious as this from MS. Linus needs to get his priorities refocused.
I had an fs corruption with RH 7.2, using the kernel that came with the distro. It trashed the geometry of an entire drive. I was using a combo of ext2 and ext3 on the drive. I didn't lose anything, as I backup my system regularly.
I've since migrated to Mandrake 8.1, which is much more solid than RH 7.2. Yet, it too runs a 2.4 kernel variant. This distro on one boot failed to recognize the ext3 partitions. I migrated all of the ext3 partitions back to ext2.
I'd be very interested in learning if this is a problem that extends far back into the kernel tree.
Graham
Linux - Fast Pane Relief
I compiled and ran 2.4.15 for few hours and now I'm back to 2.4.14. As for me it appears my file system is intact. At least I don't think I did. How do I know for sure my files won't disappear on me? What kind of error messages would I see if my file system is corrupt? How do I correct it?
Ok, no if this is still in "testing" forgive me.
Should this darn thing be tested before it's released as "final"! I mean just a few weeks ago you guys were bashing Apple for their iTunes install that wrecked the hard drive, and now you're just coming up with solutions. How bout complaints? How about "This code should never have been released with such a serious bug". Again if this is test code then fine, it comes with the territory. Even if it's "Implied" test code, that's not good enough.
I say kernel development in stable/testing/unstable branch.
Agree?
The mailing list converted tabs into spaces, causing patch to choke. Get the patch here.
This is one reason why distributions are so important. They do the QA, they make sure packages are stable, they apply the patches. If you want to download and run the latest edition of every package out, including the kernel, then you should expect some bumps in the road, because you are beta testing - even on a "stable" kernel series. Remember: release early, release often. You will have to do the QA, you will have to apply the patches, you will be burned. Some people like doing this to stay on the bleeding edge, others are a bit more cautious.
If you want stable, solid kernels, that are heavily QA'd wait for packages to come out. Otherwise, post a bug report, and quit whining.
------ 24.5% slashdot pure
Do you want to create a trojan horse? Just "contribute" malicious code to the Linux kernel. It's a sure bet!
If only this was Open Source Software, the source code could have been examined by thousands of highly motivated and intelligent hackers, who would have noticed the problem immediately. Wait....
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
torvalds@transmeta.com
Remember the great thing about Linux is that you can always use the Internet as your support contract. Since this is a problem with the kernel, I suggest you email Linus.
I personally dislike Linux (and Linus), and I don't plan on using it any time soon, but Open Source is more than a Linux kernel.
Open Source was here before Linux, and it will be here long after Linux is gone; hell, open source was here long before MS, long before Apple, and long before its closed source equivilents.
I use open source software everyday. I release my own software under open source licenses. Open Source is great, even if Linux is not.
I was JUST about to test out 2.4.15. I think I'll wait a few more weeks now.
THANK YOU SLASHDOT!
2.4.x has been such a clusterfuck. I'm not saying it sucks, but calling 2.4 a "release" is stretching it. On my game box, I ran 2.4.9 for a long time and then recently upgraded to 2.4.15-pre7 but I was really just lucky. My server is still running 2.2.19 + openwall, and it'll keep running 2.2.x until 2.6 is "released", when maybe it'll finally be safe to upgrade to 2.4. Until then, 2.4.anything is bleeding edge and don't forget it, folks. Linux's and Windows' usage of the word "release" is very different than the rest of the world's.
Y'know, you'd have better luck trolling if you didn't put "troll" in your name. Anyway, everyone knows BSD is more reliable than either Linux or Windoze - however, I don't contribute to BSD, because it's not GPL, and the BSD crowd are a bunch of stupid suckers who don't seem to mind it when people nick their code...
Hell, some of the people who criticize Windows and criticize Linux might even be THE SAME PEOPLE! My God! How hypocritical!!
It's rotted.
Nope, no sir. I'm sticking with 2.4.11.
No room for credit in your sig?
Actually, no there wasn't. The 120 char limit on sigs is a pain. I tried shortening the quote a little bit all I ended up being able to do was get as far as "Lord Oml" before running out of room. If it bothers you that much I can change my sig.
PS:Moderators don't bother modding this thread down as offtopic, that's what the [OT] in the subject is for. Instead go find something insightful or informative to mod up instead.
> So who else is downloading 2.5 (Score:5, Funny)
> by Chuck Chunder on Friday November 23, @02:23AM
>
> so they can be cool and trendy and be on the development tree while it's still stable?
>
> The Great Chunder Page - Alcohol Induced Fun!
If you didn't think it was funny before, admit it -- it's pretty damn funny now.
Grrr... Definitely time for a three-pronged development. STABLE, TESTING, DEVEL, trees, please!
And would it kill them to use a versioning system ??? - CVS is great, but there's other options, too...
This sort of thing is NOT good, in a supposedly "stable" tree, and gives MS, BSD, and proprietary Unix folk lots of Ammo against Linux.
To be fair, people adminning production boxes should be using the kernels from their Distro's site, since, really, it's the distro that is the OS, and RH, SuSe, and Mandrake all heavily regression-test and fine tune their kernel, it's not necessary to be on the bleeding-edge.
there's a reason why FreeBSD is the only way to go...this is it.
I'm telling you, those Micro$hit morons couldn't build an OS if their lives depended on it. They give us their crappy bugous system and we're supposed to manage with that. Idiots!
Oh. Wait a minute... The bug was in LINUX you're saying?
I know what happened! Bil Gates sent spies to interfere with Linux's development process in order to put bugs in their systems and take over the world.
Yes. This is exactly what happened.
_____________
Don't be a conformist! Be exactly like our group.
In fact, my Windows partition has killed itself three times.
"Active Desktop" still gives me problems to this day. Upgrade to Windows 2000/XP? When I get the money...too busy buying software that I use to actually work with.
yep, u called it bud.. good one.
Bugs happen and now you're criticizing people who go it fixed in a very short time. How about being fair and telling it to Microsoft when they fuck up and don't fix for weeks?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
for once I'm glad i have 56k and decided against downloading the new kernel just yet. for all those bitching cause their system got hosed. well what did you expect? thats why you wait for the next post on slashdot saying somethings wrong with the new kernel. besides what about 2.4.15 was so necessary that you had to have the latest incremental kernel? I'm rather happy with 2.4.8. unless you're a developer/bug-tester/bleed-freak what reason do you have to upgrade to the very latest kernel?
-
Weren't there more testers to catch this sort of thing before?
Why use amateur open source or legacy Apple software when you can leverage Windows 2000 or XP; fully tested, debugged, stable and feature rich.
The Microsoft Windows family is the dominant desktop and server OS for good reason; Microsoft is the paradigm of total customer satisfaction.
...but, part of the fix is:
/. joke here.
new fs flag: "MS_ACTIVE"
Insert your own
I don't care what the theory behind even,odd stable/development scheme is supposed to be.
The reality is that the latest kernel releases
is the fresh new stuff.
It's ore still glowing orange red.
It's for people who want to help test out the latest stuff as it happens.
be prepared for bumps and sharp turns, stalls, whatever.
If you are running production servers you should
know to use an earlier 2.4 or even a 2.2 kernel.
No whining on the bleeding edge.
I think that ReiserFS might be able to cope with it. The transaction log is not stored in/as inodes, therefore the transaction log replay should fix the B*Tree of data if it's broken. I'm not sure of other journalling filesystems... I'm glad I use raw partitions for my MySQL/InnoDB databases :) I could be wrong about the ReiserFS thing, so if anyone has any info to the contrary, it would be much appreciated. It only seems logical that FS's that were written for the possibility that Inodes wouldn't be flushed would be just fine.
:) I'ld rather know now than when I actually need to run the kernel.
BTW... has anyone ever seen NTFS corrupt. I've seen it happen to many before. It's not pretty... you can't recover a single file. Still its better than FAT (with all the corruption there, I wonder why it hasn't formed it's own lifeform from the randomness) Still... this is no excuse for not testing software/major changes in a stable tree.
Those who say that no one should have downloaded the new kernel just aren't thinking. We all should for this particular reason. We need to find the bugs fast and keep our beloved kernel developers on their toes
Karma Clown
Mmmm. True. Open-source might not be necessarily better than closed
source, but the fact that three fixes have already been posted on Slashdot
and more on linux-kernel seems a pretty good indicator to me.
Mmmmmmm. Let's look at the tally, shall we:
Open-source: Fix available for superbad bug less than an hour after
report to mailing list.
Closed-source: No fix. Upgrade disappears. Company denies it ever
existed. Fix may or may not appear later on.
A week ago I might have disagreed, but that was before my company began
the process of getting the Peachtree people to admit that one of their
"automagic" upgrades nearly hosed our accounting data (thank God for
backups).
True, both ideologies (if that's the right term) have the same fundamental
problems. But I certainly prefer the open source option right now.
Bottom line, Open Source developers value users. Commercial developers
value money. I don't have a lot of money. It's all about my best
interests--and the code.
So, will we start seeing -post releases?
Heh. I can see it now. 2.4.15-post1 :)
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
[nt]
As an owner of a lovely IBM 75GXP hdd, I can say Win2k fixes corrupted files on NTFS pretty well. NT4 is perhaps a different ballgame, there you have the chance to indeed get stuck with files which are not recoverable at all.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
And what the fuck does Microsoft have to do with any of this?
Is there any project to create a set of regression tests for the Linux kernel? This is not the first serious bug that would have been found with even the most basic set of regression tests.
Prepared Text of Remarks by Craig Mundie, Microsoft Senior Vice President
The Commercial Software Model
The New York University Stern School of Business
May 3, 2001
It has long been said that change is the only constant in the technology industry. In the past 20 years the velocity of that change has accelerated at a seemingly exponential rate, serving constantly as an engine of growth for the global economy.
Yet during the last year, the U.S. economy has hit what could be regarded as its most substantial speed bump of the past two decades. Illustrated most starkly by the declining valuation of the NASDAQ, we've witnessed a notable decline in consumer confidence that has people wondering whether we're at a brief respite or whether we've reached the end of an economic era.
At Microsoft we believe that the personal information technology revolution that began in the early 1980s is far from over. It probably has at least two more decades to go. But it's also important that we learn from the lessons of the past year and apply them in order to make the most of the potential that lies ahead.
One lesson is that we should keep things in context. Every big phase of economic expansion has its share of downturns, and new technological advances frequently bring with them a share of over-exuberance. The recent and substantial technology investment downturn mirrors similar episodes that affected railroads, steel, automobiles and radio. In this context, it's not surprising that, as early as 1995, Bill Gates wrote in his book The Road Ahead about what he called the "Internet gold rush" and predicted both enormous long-term advances and substantial short-term setbacks, saying "Gold rushes tend to encourage impetuous investments. A few will pay off, but when the frenzy is behind us, we will look back incredulously at the wreckage of failed ventures and wonder, 'Who funded these companies? What was going on in their minds? Was that just mania at work?"
But there is a broader lesson as well - companies and investors need to focus on business models that can be sustainable over the long term in the real world economy. A common trait of many of the companies that failed is that they gave away for free or at a loss the very thing they produced that was of greatest value - in the hope that somehow they'd make money selling something else. The Internet, for example, was full of sites producing content for free, in the hope that somehow they'd generate revenue from sources that never materialized, whether it was advertising, subscriptions, or a wing and a prayer. As we've learned - or really re-learned - one can't build a business or our economic future on that type of flimsy foundation.
Contrast this recent experience with the two decades of economic success that preceded it. The global economy grew in an unprecedented way in no small measure because of a generation of new companies, of which Microsoft was fortunate to be one. Many or even most of these companies invested heavily in research and development and sold their principal products at prices that covered their costs and generated profits that they reinvested in further research and development.
This research and development model, in turn, was almost always based on the importance of intellectual property rights. Whether copyrights, patents or trade secrets, it was this foundation in law that made it possible for companies to raise capital, take risks, focus on the long term, and create sustainable business models.
Despite the demonstrable success of the computing industry and the IP-based economy, and the clear failure of newer firms that gave away products for free, it's notable that in the past year there has been a broader discussion about whether the ingredients that delivered longstanding economic success can continue to do so. In part this discussion has focused on whether the personal computer will continue to provide a sustainable technological foundation for economic growth. And in part this has focused on whether IP protection as we have known it - whether for music, software, or other products - should continue to be a fundamental engine of economic growth.
The questions to be raised are twofold:
Can the personal information technology continue to drive broad economic growth?
The answer is "yes."
The computing industry needs to move to a model of multiple computing devices that more effectively empower people to unleash the computing power of the Internet and move their ideas and their content with them from machine to machine.
Should an information-based economy protect the intellectual property assets that are driving its growth?
The answer is "yes."
We should examine the progress of the Internet to understand the landscape of the software industry today and how intellectual property fits into that landscape.
In thinking about the technology foundation we need, it's important to recognize that the popular use of the Internet is still less than 10 years old, and is already moving into its third significant phase.
Phase 1: In the early '90s it was all about static information. The nascent World Wide Web was catapulted to the world stage as millions of individuals and businesses began to tap the potential of the medium.
Phase 2: The late '90s saw the birth of the online transaction and the promise of Internet-based business models. Both were about connectivity, but now the static distribution of information was replaced by business-to-customer or business-to-business transactions. For the general public, Amazon.com came to personify the Internet transaction. Revenue models based on advertising sales vs. product sales came into vogue and Yahoo became the poster child for this model. The interesting part of this model is the shift of focus away from the technology IP to content IP as the revenue engine for a company.
Phase 3 is what is being worked on now. It's all about connecting the currently separate complex systems of information and transactions and bringing that power to the individual in a readily accessible format on a variety of devices.
These new technologies will be able to identify the relationships between disparate information sources and transactional environments. The individual may then cull relevant data and execute the necessary transactions to complete a task or make strategic decisions. An example of this would be to have a single process for identifying physicians covered by your healthcare plan, comparing physical locations of clinics to mass transit schedules and routes, scheduling the appointment and taking care of the co-pay all at once. Most importantly, this can be done any time, any place and on any device.
There are challenges to the success of Phase 3 becoming a reality.
Business models:
The increasing numbers of failures in the
Advertising as the primary revenue stream
Operating under the assumption that market share equals revenue
Free now, pay later
Development models:
A heavy investment in research and development is going to be required in order for businesses and individuals to see the benefits of phase 3.
People:
The technology industry has to prove its commitment to privacy and security in order to encourage user acceptance of the technologies. Furthermore, the next phase needs to be presented in a simple and compelling fashion so that individuals and businesses may make use of them easily.
The paradigm shift that is at the core of phase three is the focus of the Microsoft
It is important to note that Phase 3 will not come about due to any one company's, or even a single group of companies', efforts. Innovation investment and a significant community of software developers will need to share the excitement for bringing about the next generation of the Web. The resulting intellectual property will be the foundation of the business model providing the continuing opportunity for R&D investment.
The business model I am speaking of for Phase 3 is the Commercial Software Model. The taxonomy of this model is built around 5 key elements:
Community: a strong support community of developers
Standards: promote collaboration and interoperability while supporting innovation and healthy competition
Business Model: promotes the growth of a profitable business
Investment: level of research and development investment drives resources for future innovation
Licensing Model: provides product and source access without jeopardizing the intellectual property rights of those who create or use the software
Microsoft has fostered the world's largest community of software developers for well over a decade. Today, our developer network (MSDN) works with a community of 5 million developers. The element of the commercial software model for Phase 3 that we need to improve is that of our licensing model. Microsoft is expanding its licensing model to include our "Shared Source Philosophy."
Shared Source is a balanced approach that allows us to share source code with customers and partners while maintaining the intellectual property needed to support a strong software business. Shared Source represents a framework of business value, technical innovation and licensing terms. It covers a spectrum of accessibility that is manifest in the variety of source licensing programs offered by Microsoft.
The principles of the Shared Source Philosophy are:
Helping customers and partners to be successful through source access programs
Building the development community and offering them the tools to produce great software
Improving the feedback process in order to create better products for Microsoft's customers and partners
Maintaining the integrity of our customers' environments
Increasing educational access in order to get the technology into the hands of universities worldwide, and to seed the future of a strong technology industry
Protecting software intellectual property based on the firm belief that software offers value as the basis of a successful business.
Some examples of Shared Source already being implemented at Microsoft:
Research Source Licensing: For nearly a decade Microsoft Research has licensed Windows source code to more than 100 academic institutions in 23 countries.
Enterprise Source Licensing Program: Source code for Windows 2000 and subsequent releases of Windows is available for licensing at no charge to over 1,000 enterprise customers in the United States. Today we are announcing a pilot program expanding the ESLP to 12 additional countries.
ISV Source Licensing: we are developing a program for licensing Windows source code to top tier ISVs for development and support purposes
OEM Source Licensing: Windows source code has been licensed for years to leading OEMs to assist in the development and support of their consumer and server products
Windows CE source code access: We are licensing Windows CE source code through Platform Builder 3.0 (generally available to all developers). Microsoft will be broadening and adding to the community support mechanisms through the Platform Builder Program. In the second half of this year we will offer academic site licenses for CE source code.
Additionally, we have announced an expanded level of CE source access to, (i) our leading silicon vendor partners via the Windows Embedded Strategic Silicon Alliance program, and (ii) our leading system integrator partners via the Innovation Alliance Program.
Sample code: Over the years Microsoft has made millions of lines of source code freely available to developers through resources such as SDKs, DDKs, and MSDN.
We have announced that the specifications for the
We emphatically remain committed to a model that protects the intellectual property rights in software and ensures the continued vitality of an independent software sector that generates revenue and will sustain ongoing research and development.
The commercial software model is just one model being utilized in the software industry today. It is important to take into account the Open Source Software movement as an example of an alternative model.
The phrase "open source software," or OSS, is often used as an umbrella term for a collection of product development, distribution and licensing practices, many of which have existed individually since the early days of computing. There are actually a number of different approaches within this community, but the common traits are providing people with access to source code and allowing others to modify and redistribute that code.
As a result of Microsoft's statement of position today, many people will attempt to say that Shared Source is Microsoft's failed attempt at being an Open Source Company. This could not be a more incorrect statement. Shared Source is not Open Source. We recognize that OSS has some benefits, such as the fostering of community, improved feedback and augmented debugging. We are always looking for ways to improve our products and make our customers more successful, and to that end we have incorporated these positive OSS elements in Shared Source. But there are significant drawbacks to OSS as well.
The OSS development model leads to a strong possibility of unhealthy "forking" of a code base, resulting in the development of multiple incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product instability, and hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the future. Furthermore, it has inherent security risks and can force intellectual property into the public domain.
Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU General Public License or GPL. The GPL mandates that any software that incorporates source code already licensed under the GPL will itself become subject to the GPL. When the resulting software product is distributed, its creator must make the entire source code base freely available to everyone, at no additional charge. This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the intellectual property of any organization making use of it. It also fundamentally undermines the independent commercial software sector because it effectively makes it impossible to distribute software on a basis where recipients pay for the product rather than just the cost of distribution.
In this sense, open source software based on the GPL mirrors the
I argee. There's something seriously wrong with the development tree of 2.4. Here it is almost a year later and they only now put out the 2.5 tree, only to find out that it's seriously buggy. On previous versions, we didn't rush the releases, and it took LESS time to produce the odd-numbered development version. Is Alan Cox learning some bad MS/RH tricks to get software up and going?
And who says Mozilla is at a slow pace? It's steady, but you don't have much problems with it any more, either. (Sure, it took a lot to REBUILD THE ENTIRE BROWSER, but now we have a product that is far better than IE or Netscape.)
Zodiac Survey
Linux makes a very nice workstation OS, but things like this that cause me to recommend FreeBSD for the server...
I've never heard of something like this happening in FreeBSD-STABLE.
While Linux may have more cutting edge features and perhaps has some speed advantages (this is debatable), the FreeBSD (and OpenBSD too!) coders are more conservative about what gets integrated into something which is supposedly stable.
BSD gives you more peace of mind IMHO.
The moving cursor writes, and having written, blinks on.
Think about it.
It's called the devolpment process, people.
I think it was Lao
Tzu who said.
No doubt, the Kernel is unfolding as it is supposed to.
I see nothing in all these posts to convince me
otherwise.
the latest kernel by definition will always
have a greater chance of being less stable as
the kernel release serveral weeks earlier.
Get over it.
that is more stable , not more feature laden.
To all those who say we should have a 3 pronged
stable/testing/unstable development tree...
we already do. it's just not official as to where
the exact demarcations are.
But everyone knows where they are aproximately.
It amazes me how big of a deal people make these types of issues out to be. I have heard of high standards but SH*T!. The more I read slashdot the more I realize that very few posters here actully work with much commerical grade software. These type of issues occure freqently with every software vendor I deal with professionally: Cisco, Microsoft, IBM, RedHat, Checkpoint ect.. ect.. The difference is when Cisco releases a new IOS image (which they do about twice as freqently as Linus does) They will quitely mark saym a 1/4th of them DF which stands for _DEFFERED_ i.e. SERIOUS BUG DON'T USE once it is discovered.
This is why production implentations of software go through testing before deployment when at all possible. If you are running Cisco IOS that is say less then a month old you are taking a risk that there will be a serious bug that will hurt you. The same holds true for Linux kernels or any other peice of software. The more complicated the software the harder it is to keep serious bugs from slipping through the cracks, It is _AMAZING_ that Linux has a few major issues as it does.
Here is an exercise for you all: Go to www.microsoft.com go to their support section and read through all of the changelogs (they are hard to find) for all of the hot fixes, service packs and general software updates and you will see what I mean (And yes you will find file system corruption there too).
-- You can be a geeklord too
why do so many people immediately start trashing Windows whenever ANY kind of weakness is debated in Linux?
it's one thing to knock on FAT, but NTFS (and NT/2k) is so far beyond FAT (and EXT2FS for that matter) that you might as well be comparing a Boeing 747 to a Wright Flyer.
don't always try to shine the spotlight on NT, when it's focused so brightly on the invincible (laff!) Linux kernel.
I've seen lots of posts about 'We need to QA this!'
and 'Are there any projects to try and QA the kernel releases?' Both of these miss the point. While we do need more people running the tests which do exist on the -pre releases, it comes down to Linus having an itchy trigger finger, so to speak. 2.4.15 in it's final form did exist for a little while, but it wasn't long enough for anyone to go and give it a good test. There's often been requests for Linus to wait a few days from the last -pre to -final so other arches and sync up (2.4.15 only compiles on x86/sparc64/arm and alpha). If this was released on monday, none of this would happen.
Kernel released,Bug found,Bug Fixed.
What's the problem?
Just wanted to remind you that testing doesn't guarantee lack of errors, it's only the other way around (lack of testing guarantees errors). Even with tons of testing, showstoppers still make it to public releases.
...
The only problem is that a lot people download the latest kernel imediately after its release and put it on a production machine. My message to them (to you): "You're nothing but insane!". IMHO this should be a very valuable lesson to you
The Raven
The Raven
The real problem is that new functionality is being added to the stable branch.
The solution to this type of problem is simple, when a stable kernel is released, an unstable branch should be created immedately. New functionality was being added to the 2.4 branch by developers simply because there is nowhere else to put it.
New functionality should never be added to a stable branch in a piece of software as mission-critical as a kernel, that is what the unstable/development branch is for.
If the kernel maintainers want to accelorate the pace at which new functionality gets into a stable branch then they should increase the frequency with which development branches become stable.
::sigh:: If you want a complete in-house-tested Linux OS, and you don't want to be a beta tester, get something like Debian stable.
Yes, it's stale and out of date when compared with other distributions (e.g. Debian unstable), and yes, the default kernel is 2.2.19 (and when the current testing distribution becomes Debian 3.0, they're probably going to include a 2.2 kernel with that too). This is the price you pay for stability.
Here's the difference in philosophy:
MS: Only use the next version of Windows in-house until they're confident that it's nearly ready, then release it to beta testers, then fix bugs they report, then release when they're confident that it's ready.
Linux kernel team: Release N.N.NNpreN versions until it's nearly ready, then release a "final" version; let distributions and "advanced users" (i.e. those who compile their own kernels) decide where they want to be on the spectrum going from cutting-edge features to known reliability.
When do you think the Windows kernel developers last made major (i.e. non-bugfix) changes to, say, the released WinXP kernel, anyway? Probably quite a while back... and yet nobody complains about that, precisely because we never see the latest version until it's considered stable and used in Windows ZQ or something in a couple of years.
Between this and the security hole that surfaced recently, the kernel has had some really scary problems. I'm wondering if this latest problem could have been avoided?
...Alan Cox needs to take his dick out of his mouth.
Expecting a OS to not destroy files is not holding a high standard. Just the opposite.
"If you want stable, solid kernels, that are heavily QA'd...."
Yes I do and that why I use Windows 2000.
I have been testing ever since I first heard whispers of this bug this morning and both of my test machines (one VIA KT266A/AthlonXP, one 440BX/dual pentium-II) which use ReiserFS seem completely unaffected... More after continued testing.
-----------------------------------------
Remove the Greed which plagues mankind.
Windows is the place where Bill Gates displays all of the ideas he's stolen, and all of the companies he's crushed. It's a museum dedicated to the multifarious ways in which greed and power corrupt. I wouldn't use his OS even if it was worth a shit. As for being "a paradign of total customer satisfaction", I'm surprised most Windows users can get any work done at all. I mean holding a mouse with your right hand and your nose with the other doesn't leave a hand free to do anything else...
The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected. -- Will Rogers
When the so-called stable kernel can be released with such a huge bug, how can we tell the managers that Linux is stable and hassle-free?
Really - we need to make scripts that test right about every critical aspect of a kernel. That would be file systems, VM, IPC, SMP, hardware drivers, SCSI, IDE, ethernet, token ring and more.
Has anybody made such scripts? One thing is a broken, obscure driver, another thing is bugs that break everybody - like VM and now unmount.
Stop the brainwash
Installed 2.4.15 the day this post came out. GAH! Now trying to deinstall the bird and go back to 2.4.14, and no matter what I do it says it's the greased turkey.
Back to 2.2.19 now to recompile 2.4.14...
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
These sorts of things should not creep into the STABLE kernel series.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
fs/fs.o: In function `dput':
fs/fs.o(.text+0x118a8): undefined reference to `atomic_dec_and_lock'
make: *** [vmlinux] Error 1
Well, at least you aren't expecting me to bitch about microsoft, in this totally unrelated story, anymore.
This is sorta like the glitch in 2.4.11, only worse...
Linux foo.bar.net 2.2.18 #1 Tue Dec 26 19:31:37 PST 2000 i686 unknown
Yea, I'm jealous too.
That only works when you like to make excuses for others. There is no testing branch. There's only stable and development and there's no excuse for 2.4 being so unstable. Quit making excuses.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
This bug had already been mentioned on a post on the original article that informed us of 2.5's release.
5 154
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=24074&cid=260
What happened? Didn't anyone take this seriously?
void women (int money, time_t time);
Take this post as a challenge. Reply with a link that shows that there is/was a bug in Redhat Linux 7 that caused the loss of an ENTIRE FILE SYSTEM.
The point (which I'm sure you'll miss, but anyway) is that linux-2.4.15.tar.gz is not an operating system. Anyone with the knowhow to download, compile, and install 2.4.15 from source had better be able to run fsck when something like this happens.
Furthermore you way overstate the case when you assert this causes lost file systems. The vast majority of 2.4.15 corruption cases can be repaired with a fsck.
Personally, I consider the code red II worm to be a far greater threat to my data than linux-2.4.15.tar.gz.
to not use the latest and "greatest" from Linus. After trying some of the newer kernels and distributions out there, I have decided to only use Debian (with the 2.2.X kernels) and FreeBSD on servers. Say what you will, but the 2.4.X series has been full of disappointment and heartache for many people.
Now it can only get better :-)
http://www.millnet.se/ GO/U d- s+:+ a C++ UL++++ P- L+++ E W+++ N+ w++ M-- PE+ t+ X++
Whoa.. I was running it there for a few minutes until I saw this.. then I compiled 2.4.14 right away and rebooted, there don't seem to be any problems yet.
This all makes me wonder, though, about 2.4. I mean it seems like there have been relatively many "big" problems with 2.4 throughout its life. 2.4.10 had the SMP thing, 2.4.15 has this, and there have been other problems big enough to pretty much make a version unusable.
I don't seem to remember as much of this happening with 2.2, I mean obviously every major new version of the kernel will be rough around the edges for the first few releases, but 2.2 seemed not to have as many of these big problems. So, what's going on, are kernels getting worse or am I just smocking crack?
"Caffeine is not an option. Caffeine is a way of life."
Hmm the bazaar approach seems to suck right now... Perhaps something people call testing is in order? Oh yeah... I wonder how many "Linux does no wrong" zealots yelled about the iTunes installer bug? Hmmm
I'm a complete Linux Newbie, so please don't mod me down for just asking. Was there ever a kernal 2.3? Or will we be seeing it when 2.2 reaches a certain development point?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
Since I first started using linux there have been two development trees.. 2.even.x [stable] and 2.odd.x [unstable].
What makes one more stable than the other?
There must not be too much testing of these so called bug fixes going on. I mean a simple reboot seems to be all that was needed to bring this bug to light.
I would really like to know that when a "stable" kernel comes out that it has at least been tested somewhat before release. As the kernel grows larger I sense that these problems will increase in frequency.
I'm running Slackware 8.0 with kernel 2.4.15, and I haven't had any problems... yet. I'm running on a laptop that gets turned off nightly, so I've had a good 5 reboots in there since I upgraded...
I have a hard time believing that this is how anyone wanted 2.5 to start.
No, that will corrupt your filesystem too. Windows can't read ext2fs, and when you install it, if you're not paying attention, it will destroy all your data.
And after you lose all your data, you find your old apps (e.g. Galeon) don't work anymore, and your OS has a bunch of security holes. Your fix does not work.
End of line.
I found a patch that solves the problem TOTALLY! The URL is www.freebsd.org
Linux Sucks by the way
<pseudo-rant>
maybe there's a good side to your ISP going out of business and qwest dsl fscking you over changing your isp, making it harder to update your kernel 8)
</pseudo-rant>
but ultimately, i can't see its all that big of a deal. all you have to do is take a couple of weeks to get to the newest kernel. wait till its been out a fortnight, and you're golden
Brian Voils
"A university is what a college becomes when the faculty loses interest in students."
I'm sure that moderator wished he could give +10, Funny.
But I have a problem. You see, every ten minutes I get a blue screen with weird error messages, and I have to reboot every time.
Oh well, you said it's a fix, so I'll just have to assume that to reboot 144 times per day is a fix.
A fix was released in merely hours. I don't see Microsoft doing that.
Look, writing software is difficult, and anything as complicated and flexible as the Linux kernel is a management headache, to say the least.
It's fine and dandy to say "don't add new features in the stable series", but then what about important features like USB? When the 2.2 kernel series went stable, USB was a pipe-dream, so at around 2.2.15 (IIRC) USB was back-ported into the 2.2 kernel. This was generally considered a GOOD THING, not too risky.
Even when not adding new features, sometimes just fixing bugs can cause new bugs to appear. A fact of software development is that sometimes things like this happen. Unforseen necessity can destabilize stable software. Try as we might, following proper coding practices and the like, writing software has continued to be hard simply by virtue of its complexity. Writing software is somewhat of a craft, not a pure engineering, and sometimes things don't go as planned (think leaky pottery).
Ultimately, though, the goal is to improve the process as much as possible, keep/sell the "good" products (such as kernel 2.4.14) and throw away the ones that developed leaks (such as 2.4.15).
1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.
What Linus needs to find is a crack team of kernel breakers. People with varieties of hardware. They need to build an automated testing tool that would automatically put the release kernel through thousands of iterations of tests, to ensure that nothing is wrong. What they need is a GNU/Autotest for testing kernels in a peer-to-peer SETI@home style, on non essential machines.
David
Are you defending Microsoft? Defending the advocates of Microsoft? Who are you defending? You are obviously anti-pro-linux and pro-anti-microsoft, wait is that right? I don't know.
You make a point that seems to be silly since it's comparing fresh fruit (linux) and rotting vegetables (windows). This couldn't be the other way around as you claim. Microsoft doesn't release any of their source code.
I can't get xmms to run!@!!
How does Outlook import Kmail mail?
I can't get my Konqueror bookmarks in IE
HOw come I can't get Galeon to work
What the fuck is wrong my computer keeps talking to me
And everytime I try to ru RPM it tells me bad command or file name how do i install anything
MS has 36 billion bucks. Linux is a volunteer effort.
Why is is that they are even in competition, again? Why is it MS can't buy some fucking good PROGRAMMING???
..including the patch for this bug. get it here
Don't you have to reboot to make the patch work? Does'nt that require an unmount?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
Well, almost all this day I runned 2.4.15 (under reiserfs) and hadn't had problems of corruption (rebooted a couple of times).
Anyway, I switched to 2.4.13ac2 for safety reasons.
I agree, LINUX MUST HAVE A BETTER QA, otherwise there won't be much difference between LINUX and M$.
The 2.4.15 bug didn't bite me. Of course, Slackware's shutdown script runs sync automatically.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
People downloading kernels from kernel.org, particularly in the first few days of a release, are part of the QA process, not the ultimate beneficiaries of one.
The Open Source (or more correctly, bazaar or distributed) development model also distributes responsibility. If the possibility of losing your data is something you can't afford then you simply shouldn't be sitting on the cutting edge of kernel development.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
There's the OS for you, typical piece of untested fucked up crap.
Oh, wait. This is Linux we're talking about. Hmmm. OK, I know:
Go Linus! Go Alan! Go kernel Gods! We're sure this is a very minor thing that will be fixed in no time! It doesn't matter!! We can take anything!! We love you!!!
Micro$soft sucks! Linux roolz!!!1!!!
OK, now moderate up, si vouz plez.
I don't want to shutdown with 2.4.15...
I swear, I must've gotten on the bad side of some mods or something. Every legitimate opinion or comment I offer in every thread gets modded down. Kind of not fun when lots of people can't read what you're saying because you're unfairly below the threshold. I know this post itself is offtopic, but my karma is so low because of strange modding that I felt like responding. I don't understand why my comment was modded down or labelled as "offtopic", but I guess it's silly to get overly concerned over it. *sigh*...
- bonch
stay animated
This is just the the thing "my mother/reast of the world except the converted" has against Linux.. Non "fully" tested code coming out a "stable" release...
Marcelo your first priority should be to come up with a plausible patch plan.. ie:
<UL>
<LI>There should be more than a few days between patches, preferably months.</LI>
<LI>There should be a REAL test task force, not
only rely on "nerds".</LI>
</UL>
Without STABILITY Linux will NEVER succeed...
And for Linus on the 2.5 side: Come up with a plan where the kernel is EASY to update.. We "nerds" know how to do this.. But the "TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION" is about the non "nerd/technical" people...
-- Kalle Kiviaho - kivi@picox.se -- Another day, another coma..
For clean code, use NetBSD.
Well I already said it didn't I?
http://ltp.sourceforge.net/
You continue to be a drain on the avger /. IQ. Thanks for your dopey comments.
...by RH to get people to run only shrink-wrapped Linux. (Hey, it makes at least as much sense as the latest "Here's how Bill Gates is taking over the world" mass delusion that runs rampant on /. ...)
Well, at least 2.5 was fucked up! Now nobody can really say that 2.5 was ever stable!
I've got news for you you zealots from the OSS, Windows, *BSD, Mac, and whatever camps: No one (or one technology) has a monopoly on writing high quality, usable, software. So get off your friggin' high horse and do some serious testing from now on if you really want to see Linux continue to improve and increase its number of users.
And as for the Windows bashers in particular: Banging on Windows over 9x crashes is going to get very old in a hurry. I've been running the ass off Win2K for almost a year now without a single BSOD or system hang. And I've heavily tested XP, which is looking to be just as stable.
...that make me glad I switched to FreeBSD a while ago. /usr/src and do some rebuilding to update. No waiting for a release.
Linux does have a lot of things I miss - DRI/DRM still isn't working right, X and GTK in particular seem a bit slower - but it's absolutely rock solid. I've only managed to crash it once, and that was my own fault - loaded a KLD from 4.4-RELEASE into a 4.4-STABLE kernel. Nice panic there.
The ports system also is really nice; it could do dependencies a bit better, but it's generally fairly smart about it. And having the entire system source on dosk and available is nice.
I like how the system is in CVS - bugs get patched and fixes checked in fast, and all one has to do is a 'make update' in
-- Veni, vidi, dormivi
It doesn't, I was just curious. Stupid 120 char limit.
[o]_O
If you've been having the filesystem corruptions,
*Everybody* will get corruption using 2.4.15/2.5.0, just don't use it.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
> pre6: fix Intel 8xx agptlb flush Oooh, thats my board! This gives me hope that i can run linux again on my P4 1.4Ghz longer then 15 minutes without a hardware lockup.
I am not sure whats going on these days, but things like this are poping up way too much in the stable kernels over the past 2 months. The 2.2 series kernel had issues, but not this offtean. Plus, memory management wasn't as serious. (as far as the eariley 2.4 issues)
:)
/proc, which I find VERY usefull), I would think about switching, or dual booting. Most likley, moving my server over. BSD is quite stable compaired to Linux over the recent months. Its just not as easy to use.
Linus said when 2.3 was started that 2.4 would be a smaller quicker release style. I am wondering if that was a bad idea. Too much changed in 2.4, I think it really affected its development. I would rather see 2.5 development stopped ASAP to fix 99% of the 2.4 issues before going on. I could careless if 2.5 took another 2 years before it was started, as long as 2.4 was stable.
Becuase of all these recent events, I have decied to wait at LEAST 2 weeks before upgrading kernels. Durring 2.2 (at eailry 2.4) I would upgrade within a few hours of release. (By the time I found out
_if_ BSD would provide the same things that Linux can, (for example, a full
Anyway, I really hope things start improving.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Nice and stable. Forget the Idea that it's rarely updated, and when it is you don't see anything but the finished product. I saw the C=128 is up to Commodore Basic V7, but thats too risky for me. I prefer to stay with the good ole rock solid stuff.
Well sombody had to say it.
Opinions Expressed by Me should be Forced on Others - PbHead
Yeah we have high standards. If not we'd write the stuff ourselves right? ;)
Seriously tho, what do you want, a Linux that's slightly less unstable than Windows. Or a Linux that's actually stable.
I don't understand why so many people here are using Microsoft to show why Linux isn't that bad.
This is STABILITY we are talking about. If you have to resort to mentioning Microsoft then Linux has become rather bad hasn't it?
If you are talking Joe Public acceptability then yeah mention Microsoft.
Maybe Linux should go towards the FreeBSD style of releasing - STABLE, CURRENT, DEVELOPMENT.
More regression tests before an actual release would help too.
Cheerio,
Link.
No, really. This time I'm gonna switch to FreeBSD, I'm just too tired of this stuff :(
I have 2 systems running 2.4.15 and I have rebooted them at least a dozen times with no file system corruption. A few minutes ago I did a shutdown -F -r now to force a check and no corruption was found. Regardless I will still upgrade to the ...16-pre1. Maybe this is something that the redhat distribution does before a shutdown that keeps the problem from affecting me?
offtean = often
eailry, eariley = early?
compaired = compared
likley = likely
becuase = because
usefull = useful
Keep trying dude
Your grammar could use some brushing up too
things like this are poping up way too much in the stable kernels over the past 2 months. You are used "are" to talk about the past tense
I could careless "careless" is a word but you should have used "care less"
You didn't use an apostrophe in "its" which is correct! Good For you!
Anyway, I really hope things start improving.
It is "popping" not "poping." Poping is when you make someone the Pope.
Sorry, I find your sig's q, as off topic as it is, more interesting.
As the US Sec'y of Defense's stated preference is for killing bin Laden outright, and given that he is surrounded by an jihad army of true believers, and that a military tribunal may not coincide with a liberal's notion of "fair trial", that eventuality appears to be unlikely to occur. With all the death of late, do you really find that fact particularly saddening? Would you prefer he be taken alive and, as we'd need a dozen people too ignorant to have heard of him and his alleged deeds, round up O.J.'s old jurors for another go? Would you prefer that?
However, I'm running 2.4.12 in Debian Testing, and have not yet seen this problem.
I will, however, be forcing fsck on every boot as soon as I can find out how to set that option.
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
enterprise software, by Linux.
The question is for you to answer for yourself, friend. But thanks for sharing.
Obviously, I have answered the q. But like everyone else posting to /., i'm interested in others' opinion as well.
"Be thankful you are not my student. You would not get a high grade for such a design
For absolutely needing to upgrade your enterprise-wide linux base in a hurry. Which could happen.
I completely stuffed my first 2 or 3 kernel patches/upgrades/compiles etc, but after a couple of dozen it becomes second nature, and in a stressful (read-Manager/client on your back wanting it done yesterday!!) situation that's what you need.
Plus, it is kind of fun and interesting.
If only this was Closed Source Software, the source code would have been left to a paid team of thousands of highly (read: money) motivated and intelligent engineers, who might not have noticed the problem immediately, but would also have -thoroughly- tested the product in numerous configurations before its release to determine if such a glaring error in coding did indeed exist anywhere in the program.
Wait....
This so called history doesn't seem to have noticed that there is/was a version of DOOM for the Apple Macinstosh.
It was a great game. My only exposure to the Mac
was through that game.
Stonewolf
Well fuck off.