Linux 3.0

An anonymous reader writes "In a post to the kernel mailing list, Rob Landley, sitting in for the floating Linus, cracks the whip over what will be in Linux 3.0. His orders are on Linux and main."

Comments

The floating Linus?

[mccalli]

...sitting in for the floating Linus...

He's achieved a transcendental state now? What are the kernel people going to do when he finally ascends to Nirvana?

Cheers,
Ian

Re:The floating Linus?

[SkulkCU]

For those wondering, he's on a boat.

Either way, he doesn't exactly have his feet planted firmly on the ground...

Damn.

[packeteer]

And 2.4.19 is STILL compiling on my 50 mhz box...

Re:Damn.

[stud9920]

Just compile the much shorter Linux 0.1.81 (this will take much less time), diff it with an empty file giving you Linux -0.1.81 and diff that one with Linux 2.4.19 giving you Linux 2.4.19 -(-0.1.81)=Linux 2.4.19+0.1.81= Linux 2.6.0. If they choose to call it Linux 3.0, do the same trick with Linux 0.5.81 instead.

Ah,those newbies. Next time RTFM !

3.0?

[user32.ExitWindowsEx]

You mean it was determined the kernel is going to be called 3.0 instead of being called 2.6 after all?

Re:3.0?

[InodoroPereyra]

You mean it was determined the kernel is going to be called 3.0 instead of being called 2.6 after all?

No, the article says "3.0-pre (or 2.6-pre) series". And what's the big deal after all ?. Call it 2.6, 3.0, whatever :-)

Re:3.0?

[4of12]

Of course there's long been a convention in Linux land that less stable development kernels have odd numbers like 2.1, 2.3 and 2.5, while even numbers denote the stable series meant for pedestrian users. [Although many could argue that the VM switch during 2.4 did not exactly belong to a stable series.]

Anyway, if we're going to have an odd number major version, then all I can say is

"Get ready for a ride"...

Re:3.0?

[SurfsUp]

You mean it was determined the kernel is going to be called 3.0 instead of being called 2.6 after all?

It was not. Linus will decide that, not Rob Landry.

My most anticipated feature

[Sheetrock]

LKCD: Linux Kernel Crash Dumps. Really, I wish this had been there for the first half of 2.4 (testing-pre?). Supposedly it'll be able to save an image of kernel memory when the kernel panics to a special partition so that it can be recovered after reboot allowing easy analysis of the image. This alone should cut down greatly on the amount of work required to submit bug reports.

Re:My most anticipated feature

[NecrosisLabs]

What would be great would be if it automatically piped it to the screen, with some form of high contrast text, like white text against a blue background...

Re:My most anticipated feature

[pcidevel]

I develop drivers for Solaris, HP-UX, and Linux (for a PCI card that my company makes). I would love to see a Kernel dump for a particular problem I am trying to debug at the moment! :)

Of course, stupid mistakes in Solaris or HP-UX kills their kernel and results in waiting for the machine to reboot. Stupid mistakes in Linux results in a kernel panic with the output sent to the syslog (9 times out of 10 bad code doesn't kill the entire Kernel, so no waiting on the machine to restart), so I definately think that Linux has the upper hand as far as handling poor kernel space code.

Re:My most anticipated feature

[dracken]

Bah! all you geeks are struggling to make the first gen BSOD. Look at Cowboyneal's article last friday

Posted by Cowboyneal on Sunday October 20, @11:16AM
from the yippee-new-windows-features! dept.

In a surprise announcement today, Microsoft President Steve Ballmer revealed that the Redmond based company will allow computer resellers and end-users to customize the appearance of the Blue Screen of Death (abbreviated BSOD), the screen that displays when the Windows operating system crashes.

The move comes as the result of numerous focus groups and customer surveys done by Microsoft. Thousands of Microsoft customers were asked, "What do you spend the most time doing on your computer?" A surprising number of respondents said, "Staring at a Blue Screen of Death". At 54 percent, it was the top answer, beating the second place answer "Downloading Pornography" by an easy 12 points.

"We immediately recognized this as a great opportunity for ourselves, our channel partners, and especially our customers." explained the excited Ballmer to a room full of reporters.

Immense video displays were used to show images of the new customizable BSOD screen side-by-side with the older static version. Users can select from a collection of "BSOD Themes", allowing them to instead have a Mauve Screen of Death or even a Paisley Screen of Death. Graphics and multimedia content can now be incorporated into the screen, making the BSOD the perfect conduit for delivering product information and entertainment to Windows users.

The Blue Screen of Death is by far the most recognized feature of the Windows (tm) operating system, and as a result, Microsoft has historically insisted on total control over its look-and-feel. This recent departure from that policy reflects Microsoft's recognition of the Windows desktop itself as the "ultimate information portal." By default, the new BSOD will be configured to show a random selection of Microsoft product information whenever the system crashes. Microsoft channel partners can negotiate with Microsoft for the right to customize the BSOD on systems they ship.

Major computer resellers such as Compaq, Gateway, and Dell are already lining up for premier placement on the new and improved BSOD.

Ballmer concluded by getting a dig in against the Open Source community. "This just goes to show that Microsoft continues to innovate at a much faster pace than open source. I have yet to see any evidence that Linux even has a BSOD, let alone a customizable one."

WhooHoo

[papasui]

Ready - Rewrite of the console layer (James Simmons) http://linuxconsole.sourceforge.net/
This one specifically should significantly help Linux take off on more devices.

Linux 3.0

[TonyZahn]

I think that, in response to current marketing trends, Linux 3.0 should be given a 2-letter version id instead of a number.

How about:
Linux IS (For those unbelievers...)
Linux ME (friendlier, bloatier, used like a verb)
Linux XL (for those kernel with everything)
or
Linux ** (just take care of all the letter names at once)

Why do i care?

[nurb432]

Not to sound like a troll, or flaming developers, but seriously, from a users standpoint, why do i care?

What i have now works great, give me concrete reasons i should worry about a new release.

Now as a developer i DO care.. I'm just looking at this from the stand point of a normal user ( my customers ) who hear the same stuff from M$ or apple.. 'new and improved, you must upgrade now'... And we used that as a selling point for Linux..

Re:Why do i care?

[FooBarWidget]

Because Slashdot is a site for technical people. They care. I'm not a kernel developer, but I care about Linux development.
If you don't care, then:
1) You do not belong here. Go find yourself a different news source.
2) Change your account settings to hide Linux-related stories.

Re:Why do i care?

[Chanc_Gorkon]

Absolutly. If what you have now works, then by all means, don't upgrade......with a caveat. As with any OS, after 3.0 or 2.6 whatever it's going to be called comes out, then bug fixes may not be done for that much longer to the 2.4 series. After a while, you will probably want to upgrade anyway especially if your company pays for support from Red Hat or whoever.

The upside with Linux is that with every new version, you usually don't have to upgrade hardware all that much or at least as much as say Windows.

My only complaint.....some installers now (Red Hat's and Mandrake's in particular) won't let you install on a low end machine ( I know there may be other versions, but I am talking about the default installer.....). By low end, I mean 486 and Pentium (No Bloody II, !!! or 4). Granted, this don't hurt many, because those in the know can just get Debian and install it.....but what makes Red Hat and Mandrake so certain that you can't get something to run on those machines? It seems, to me, that maybe if they had one low end image that let you just install it anyway and just deal with the circumstances afterwards would be a better thing to do. Like I said, for most, it doesn't matter. You can pick up Pentium II's (old machines) for peanuts now, so that guy can go and upgrade that decrepit Pentium 100. But my point is, why be like Microsoft and force ANY upgrade? At some point, you could drop that support, but there are alot of those machines laying around yet and they can serve a purpose before going to the landfill.

Re:Why do i care?

[dattaway]

why do i care?

The kernel is the framework that connects to the hardware. Its like the chassis on your car, designed to give all components a secure mounting point to connect to each other. Without the kernel, all your component software would still be functional, but not to useful as they would be laying on the ground in a proof of concept state. The kernel supplies all the hardware to hook things up and make them into a fully functional machine.

The init process and scripts, libraries, and applications are the engine, powertrain components, interior, and all the other details to make a complete operating system. The kernel is simply the framework and body to make it all possible. Compile options allow you to have lightweight race car or a dumptruck.

Re:Why do i care?

[Wdomburg]

>Absolutly. If what you have now works, then by >all means, don't upgrade......with a caveat. As
>with any OS, after 3.0 or 2.6 whatever it's going
>to be called comes out, then bug fixes may not be
>done for that much longer to the 2.4 series.

You'd have to worry more about new features and hardware support getting in than bug fixes. The 2.0 kernel is still being maintained and its over six years old.

>After a while, you will probably want to upgrade
>anyway especially if your company pays for >support from Red Hat or whoever.

If you're paying for support from a company, you'd probably be best off running whatever kernel that's current for the distribution, unless you have some specific reason to deviate. And with the lengthened life cycle of products like Advanced Server, the likelyhood of having to move to a new kernel for support reasons is even lower.

Matt

Re:Already got a beta version....

[cnkeller]

Here is a good place to find out about the state of various features...

Let me be the first to come out with the bad joke

[GreyWolf3000]

Again, some of the things on this list won't make it into 3.0. It's just candidates. But everything that is NOT on this list in about 7 days is probably going to become 3.1 material by default.

Speak now, or till 3.1 hold your peace...

Ok, lets all acknowledge the obvious cracks at 3.11 (like what happened with Windows). Let's sort of communally agree that we're not going to find 'em funny, before a really dumb thread enters the picture, okay?

Not Version Bloat.

[muixA]

Before anyone gets going on it.
There have been MAJOR features added to this Kernel.
Including
- UML
- New VM
- New Scheduler
- Finer SMP Locking
- At least 2 new Journaled FS (Reiserfs4 and XFS?)
- A new POSIX thread library/API.

Does anyone know if ALSA will be included?

We will finally be able to forget about the 1980's style /dev/dsp :)

--
Matt

Re:Not Version Bloat.

[bripeace]

Alsa is already in..

Resier4 isn't in yet.. but he plans on submitting it on the 27th.. at least thats what his last email said.

XFS is already in there though

Re:Not Version Bloat.

[macdaddy]

We will finally be able to forget about the 1980's style...

But I liked the 80's style. I haven't worn out my baggy denim jacket yet and my spike hanging in there as good as ever. On a sidenote, to you men with big bald spots, I've been told that a spike is one way to conceal a growing bald spot. Become a PHB now! I want my IIe back.

Re:Not Version Bloat.

[rweir]

ALSA is defintely in, as is things like USB2, Access Control Lists, new NTFS support (it doesn't completely trash partitions now!), hot pluggable CPUs, software suspend (hit a key combo and save the whole system state to the harddrive), support for drives >2TB, and a whole lot more.

BTW, I have to love a community where this sort of thing is discussed on a site called KernelNewbies:)

cruise

[Deton8]

Screw the kernel, I want to hear more about these geek cruises!

Is media automount in the kernel yet?

[Bonker]

Automount of removeable media like every other modern OS - Windows does it. MacOS does it. Even DOS 6.2 did it. Why doesn't Linux automount (please note that I did not say 'Autoplay') removeable media? (Note, I only use 2.4 kernels in servers. This may have changed recently, and I justed missed it, but...)

Re:Is media automount in the kernel yet?

[BJH]

Check out something like WOLK - it includes the Supermount patches, which do exactly what you want (as well as automount of NFS shares upon first access).

Re:Is media automount in the kernel yet?

[Rastor]

Why doesn't Linux automount (please note that I did not say 'Autoplay') removeable media? (Note, I only use 2.4 kernels in servers. This may have changed recently, and I justed missed it, but...)

In my Red Hat servers I do this with the autofs daemon. I've used it successfully with both CD-ROM and ZIP drives, and had no problems sharing automounted drives with Samba.

Mandrake has for years now (with the exception of the 8.1 release, I believe) gone one step further by using a kernel patched with "Supermount", which is a "true" automount like you are probably thinking of.

So in fact, Linux has had this ability for quite some time now.

Re:Is media automount in the kernel yet?

[Ektanoor]

Are you from Mars? There are two versions of automount in Linux and there is something called "supermount". But if you use Linux for servers, then you are deeply wrong if you put these things into action. The automount feature is not embedded to Linux just for that reason. A good secured server should in no way give a chance to automount third party media. Only the admin should do it and he shall have a chance to do it flexibly and correctly. Believe me, that this is the true way of administration. Maybe where you work people may think it is too bad that Linux doesn't automount every piece of crap that may either trash the system or give a chance for information leaks. But, on my years of sysadmin I consider that this is one of the best features not only of Linux but of the whole *NIX family.

Re:Is media automount in the kernel yet?

[Ektanoor]

Very unfortunate example of yours. The CD is trashed, someone inserts that piece of trash into this super-feature automount. However, this dodo, instead of checking that dumb CD, he goes take some coffee. In seconds, the machine starts to sloooooooooow doooown as the dumbish CD-reader kicks more and more interrupts into the system. True story. I drunk his cup of coffee while he ran away to KICK THAT DAMN CD OUTTA THE SERVER 'CAUSE IT IS STUCK INSIDE!!!

Other example. Mr. A. H. Wannabeahacker has an account in some machine. He inserts the super-pupper CD - CrACkZ, hACKz and SuXXs. Plays a little bit and turns the server into a washing machine. Another true story. Those who work at University computer classes may have seen this a few times...

So people. I know that the autofs features are pretty cool. I do use them. But in user workstations ONLY! The lack of automount in a desktop station is a distro problem not a kernel one. All the basic infrastructure for automount is in the kernel already. However there should be some more tweaking on it, as certain types of ZIPs, CDs and HDDs may seriously influence the performance of the kernel while being mounted. It would be great to see some some kind of double checking of errors so that certain cascades wouldn't happen.

Reiser4

[KagatoLNX]

I *sooooo* hope the Hans gets off his butt and gets ReiserFS 4 in this one. If you follow the LKML closely (or just read the Kernel Traffic, http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/latest.html) then you may have heard he's sweating a bit on getting it in.

Reiser4 may just revolutionize the way the some people do stuff. I mean, next system I want to be able to do:

# cat /etc/passwd
root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash
jim: x:100:100:jim:/home/jim:/bin/bash
# cat /etc/passwd/jim/uid
100
# echo /bin/ksh > /etc/passwd/jim/shell
# cat /etc/passwd
root:x:0:0:root:/root:/bin/bash
jim: x:100:100:jim:/home/jim:/bin/ksh

All that *and* have transactional data commits with a very small performance hit!

(ReiserFS Trolls: Go ahead, bring it on!)

Re:Reiser4

[BJH]

He's going to submit it on the 27th. Linus gets back on the 27th, but probably won't actually start looking at pending patches until the 29th or 30th. I'd say it's got a 50-50 chance of getting in to the first 2.6-pre kernel, but an excellent chance of getting in before 2.6 is actually released (don't worry about the Halloween freeze - there hasn't been a major kernel release in living memory that didn't have some enormous chunk of code dropped into it at the last minute).

Re:Reiser4

[IamTheRealMike]

However, I'm not clear what feature of Reiser4 it is that you're demonstrating. Could you provide an explanation to accompany your example?

The feature he's referring to is the ability to treat files also as directories, and it promises to be a majorly cool enhancement to Linux that rewrites one of the most basic assumptions of OS design. The idea is that by improving the power of the filing system layer, and boosting the performance of the FS for small files, the need to have databases layered on top (and even /etc/passwd is a database) is eliminated. This in turn leads to a more powerful OS as that power is made generic, so being available to everything. It's better explained by Reiser himself.

One problem - 2.6/3.0 won't have that ability. What it will have is a special system call reiser4() that Hans can play with. You won't be able to "cat /etc/passwd/mike/group" anytime soon, unfortunately, this kind of major change takes a long time to work its way though the system. The reiser4 call will allow Hans to experiment with the new semantics before we even start to think about merging with the actual kernel.

Why is small file performance so important (this is the area where RFS kicks the ass of, well, pretty much everything else)? Because there are quite a lot of files out there which would actually be better stored as lots of small files. /etc/passwd is one good example, there are others. The reason they aren't currently stored as files is because traditionally filing systems have sucked when you have lots and lots of very small files, and we're talking like perhaps 5 byte files here. Reiser4 has some extremely clever algorithms in it, which mean it's good at small files but also large files too.

Of course, this is just the start of a much bigger picture, that'll see the filing system become something akin to a searchable knowledge store. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen quickly. For starters, if you were to suggest to the maintainer of app foo that they should store their data as lots of small files, they's say "no way, some of my users are on ext3, or xfs, or jfs" etc. Reiser has great vision, but he's not the only player in this field, and I have a nasty suspicion that the goal of exploding out large files into filing system structures could prove to be difficult while other filing systems are prevalent. Let's hope not, eh?

Can't help but notice...

[Saint Aardvark]

...that he's left out SearchKing's on-the-fly-Google-re-ranking patch.

Guess we know which kernel guru has started taking $ from Google!

New console layer

[jaymzter]

I for one am totally psyched about re-writing the console sublayer. It's so aesthetically annoying to be running a multi-headed system, yet be reserved to only one head when on a tty. I think this has a high geek factor

this seems a bit premature

[bripeace]

I've been reading the list and well..
This is about 1 of 3 different posts talking about 'what needs to be shown to linus when he gets back'

This is also the very first post of this one thread specific.. theres been about 5 or 6 more major things added to the list that people are hoping to get in ... Linus essentially said he wasn't leaving anyone in charge so they're trying to get one main list to give to linus (with links where possible) so that he can quickly go threw everything when he gets back

Also.. it seems noone on the list is sure whether this will be 3.0 or 2.6 at least noones given any real definate answer as far as I could see..

the lastest version of this list is here.. which compiles all the other threads in one.. is here

Re:Linux 3.0

[Fastball]

You meant to type GNU/Linux, right?

Sincerely,
RMS

Re:Linux 3.0

[cperciva]

Linux ** (just take care of all the letter names at once)

If you only want to take care of two letter tags, shouldn't that be:

Linux ??

Linux version names

[ohboy-sleep]

By the way, Linux 3.0 will officially be known as "Linux III: The Domination" and when they get around to Linux 4.0 it'll be "Linux 4: Citizens on Patrol"

obvious missing patches...

[Lumpy]

Many of you dont like it, but delivering Linux to the masses... the LPP (Linux Progress Patch) is highly important and need to be incorperated into the kernel so that it doesnt become a "left behind" item.

Yes, not seeing all the bootup messages is not highly important... but to a timid user that freaks when the computer beeps it is important. (I agree, people like that need to be kept away from technology... but these people here HAVE to work.)

Linux's acceptance on the desktop needs to have "eye-candy" like this that doesnt lower performance.

Re:Linux 3.0

[Hard_Code]

No, * is for all acronyms. The second star is for fail-over/HA.

AOL???

[brunes69]

There are still 7 days till the end of Linus's cruise, but that's not much time to get guinea pigs to publicly pipe up with a hearty "AOL!" of support for your work...

I didn't think a hearty endorsement by AOL would be good news for anything!

DOS didn't have automount.

[Inoshiro]

DOS had stateless device access. Until you tried to look at a device, DOS would not touch the device (floppy drive, hd, or CDROM drive). But when you did change to the device, it would try and read in its base directory and bootsector.

Windows emulates its behaviour towards floppy disk drives, as you will find out very painfully if you click on the A: on a computer without a floppy drive (which, for me, is all of them), or without a disk in the drive.

Automount only works on hardware that gives feedback on when media is inserted (such as a CDROM drive). To prevent Badness (TM) in the blocklayer, the automount has traditionally been eschewed in favour of explicit mount. Why? Try removing a CD that's being read from in Win9x, and watch the blue-screen "Please insert CD labelled ..." as the kernel catches a block layer exception. This can be worked around by adding drive locks every time the drive is accessed, but it's generally considered to be a hairy problem best solved by having a smarter user.

Of course, many distributions include the (separate) automount patch anyways, and people who want this behaviour won't be rolling their own kernels any time soon.

Re:DOS didn't have automount.

[brunes69]

Point taken on the blue screen, but how about in Linux when a process running off the CD freezes your console, adn the only way to get around it is to reboot (since you can't just open the CD and have the process die like in windows)? This has happened to me several times in the past. Nont to mention the number of time sI was in windows and wanted to read a serial # off of the cd, so I just open it, blue screen appears, write it down, put it back in, hit enter. No harm done. I construe the opening of cd == death to be a feature, not a detriment.

And don't forget:

[FooBarWidget]

Linux .NET Professional Edition Second Edition Service Pack 3.

LinuxXX

[macdaddy]

Screw LinuxXP. We need to sneak it in the back door of our shops. I think it should be LinuxKY.

Re:3.0? bah

[Zephaniah]

Why is this modded up as funny? I swear I've seen this gag every single time there's an article about any software that's at version 3. Gets a bit old is all I'm saying.

What should be embedded into Linux kernel 3.0

[Ektanoor]

Well, this is what some people really wish:

Internet Explorer.
GUI.
The Eternal Flat Desktop for dummies.
Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Solitaire.
Palladin .NET
WYSINAWYG
WYGINAWYW
Easter Eggs
Make desktop "user ready". Forget the flame.
Forget the bugs, claim the features.
Add 100Kb EULA into the kernel itself.
Sell it and yourself to Bill Gates.
Rename it to Windows.
Sell it for $400 and threaten everyone who will not follow you.
Write a small text, anonymously authored - "Why I switched from Linux to Windows" and claim how your customers are deeply satisfied.

More complete list

[awptic]

This page contains a complete list of every new feature that has gone into 2.5, and other features waiting to be integrated and their status:

http://kernelnewbies.org/status/latest.html

Re:Linux 3.0

[den_erpel]

No, this time Linux is correct since the topic is about the kernel.

If you are talking about the Operating System, you should address it as GNU/Linux (same as you have GNU/Mach).

e.g. Debian, SuSE, Redhat, ... distribute GNU/Linux (you would not do much with a Linux distribution).

You must have amnesia RMS, since you learnt us to cite:
GNU is the operating system and Linux is one of its kernels

Re:OK, that's it, I'm 'switching'

[IamTheRealMike]

I'm going to buy a new system in a month or so, and a stable linux 3.0 (I've heard the odd/even thing...3.0 is divisible to 1.5...right?) seems like a good excuse to finally install linux.

Welllll, if it's 3.0 that you want to try, I'd wait a few months (at least). For starters, most of the major commercial distros (and for a beginner, you want a commercial distro) have just had major revs and so won't be upgrading their kernels for a while. Linux 3 will a lot of testing before all the wrinkles are ironed out, even after release, so when you start seeing companies like RedHat, Mandrake and SuSE (the one I use) shipping with a 2.6/3.0 based kernel, then you know it'll be ready.

On the other hand, if this story just piqued your interest, and you want to try anyway (2.4.18 is pretty good) then head over to linux.com where they have a good newbie article and a ton of links to help you out. A good boxed commercial distro will come with printed manuals to get you started, and if you get stuck, want to know a command etc (and you will) come say hi to us all on irc://irc.freenode.net/#linuxhelp

Prepare to reboot your box next year...

[DocSnyder]

How could my server ever reach 1000 days of uptime with Linus throwing out new major kernel releases every two years? ;-)

Re:3.0? bah

[FrankNFurter]

DOS-Based Windows versions:

Windows 95 = Windows 4.0.950
Windows 95B = Windows 4.0.1111
Windows 98 = Windows 4.1.1998
Windows 98 SE = Windows 4.1.2222
Windows ME = Windows 4.9.3000

NT-Based Windows versions:

Windows 2000 = Windows 5.0.2195
Windows XP = Windows 5.1.2600

HTH.

Your system must have something mine doesn't.

[Inoshiro]

Wintendo has no floppy device, and I have disabled the floppy controller in the BIOS. Accidently clicking it in explorer makes the A750 into a paperweight for a few minutes, as I have to deal with Windows trying to work with what isn't there. It's probably partially the BIOS's fault, but the entire thing is a cluster fuck that should've been fixed back in the days of Win95.

You should be able to starting with 3.0 (2.6)

[alder]

The kexec patch should do the main part of the trick. And its status is Ready.

Ever heard of /dev and suid?

[KPU]

Consider a CD with Rock Ridge that has device files (/dev/hda comes to mind) with ownership to a non-root user. A user can get around /dev/ permissions by doing this if it's mounted without nodev. Also consider a suid executable owned by root. A user can run it and get root privs unless the nosuid option is set. When one user can mount as another user (as supermount would do) or with the wrong options, that's a security hole. Secondly, suppose root is copying stuff off a CD or wants to access it remotely. Do we let joe user umount it by pressing eject?

Re:Linux 3.0

[Hitokage_Nishino]

No, only Debian distributes GNU/Linux. SuSE distributes SuSE Linux, and Red Hat distributes Red Hat Linux.

I'd remark on how the kernel increasing influence on userland makes the notion of "GNU/Linux" obsolete... but I'll leave it at that to minimize flames. ;)

Re:3.0? bah

[Shanep]

And of those, the only decent ones are

98SE and 2000 (4.1.2222 and 5.0.2195).

Actually I agree with you. 95 is best left to die. 98 is decent.

What the hell are you guys smoking?! : )

Win2k is great, and NT4 OK, comparitively speaking. But ALL of the DOS based Windows suck severely. I've been supporting them all since 3.0, I'm amazed there is *anyone* who thinks 98 is at all decent.

XP is just incredible. Decent foundation with 95 stability and quirks. I fail to see how MS could possibly have made it so damn bad.