Slashdot Mirror


Linus says 2.6 kernel will be out by June 2003

Xpilot writes "C|Net reports that Linus Torvalds predicts 2.6 will be out by June next year during a talk on his Geek Cruise. Linus called the next release '2.6', but knowing him that may be just a working title;)" Update: 10/26 17:29 GMT by T : An anonymous reader adds "Rob Landley has published the latest list of features being considered for inclusion" in the new kernel; ... "the long and impressive list is available in more or less human readable form on Linux and Main."

187 comments

  1. Are you sure ? by cOdEgUru · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or did he just have one too many Margaritas on the Cruise :)

    1. Re:Are you sure ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still say he looks like Commander Data ;-)

  2. Translation... by lar3ry · · Score: 5, Funny

    This will be March, 2004 in "Linux Years."

    --
    "May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"
    1. Re:Translation... by ralmeida · · Score: 5, Funny

      At least he didn't use "Debian Years"...

      --
      This space left intentionally blank.
    2. Re:Translation... by yobbo · · Score: 5, Funny

      or Duke Nukem/Falcon 4.0 years...

    3. Re:Translation... by PinkX · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or Microsoft Time, even... 17 seconds left... 45 seconds left... 3 minutes left... etc.

    4. Re:Translation... by Gleng · · Score: 1

      Thank god he didn't use Elite 4 years...

      --
      "Proudly Posting Without Reading The Article"
  3. I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...that Linus was going to call it linux-3.0. Can somebody please stick with an official version number?

    1. Re:I thought... by frp001 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Either they called it 3.0 and the release date was June 2004, or it was 2.6 and released June 2003...

      --
      May I use your sig please?
    2. Re:I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      He should call it Linux 8.0
      2.6 sounds old, we need to catch up to MSN and AOL

    3. Re:I thought... by cscx · · Score: 5, Funny

      Nah. As with most open-source projects, there is this sickly fear of ones-place-rollover in the version number. That's why you have so many programs with a version number like 0.9999.9.9.9.9.9.4

    4. Re:I thought... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2
      Well, it will be called 3.0 and it won't be out by June. The re-numbering will be a ceremonial excuse to attone for the feature creep and the resulting lateness in shipping.

      ...well, probably. I mean, I don't have any insider information; I just pay attention to kernel release schedules. I really like the idea of calling it 2.6 because it lets contributers know that it's not supposed to be a miraculous improvement--so it might ship sooner that way.

    5. Re:I thought... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      dude...Linus says it will be 2.6, and that is that. there is no huge new anything that would deem it to be 3.0.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    6. Re:I thought... by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 2

      Linux goes to 3.x when it breaks compatability with 2.x.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    7. Re:I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VM, BI/O, scheduling, scalability, ACLs...

    8. Re:I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a kernel. It doesn't have "compatability." Compilers and libraries have "compatability." Please remove your head from your anus before speaking.

    9. Re:I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about ELF/a.out binaries, you fucking idiot? An ELF binary is usable in 2.0, but not 1.0. Sounds like broken compatibility to me.

    10. Re:I thought... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      so.....the only inovative things are UML, the preemption patch being merged, and CML2

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    11. Re:I thought... by gid · · Score: 1

      When linux went from 1.x to 2.x (circa 1995-96?) when they switched over to elf binaries from the a.out format they broke compatibility. ELF binaries do not run on Linux 1.2.x and below.

      The only thing worse than no information, is wrong information.

    12. Re:I thought... by Third+Impact · · Score: 2, Funny

      2.6 does sound old. Windows reached 3.0 over 5 years ago! I think this tells us something about how outdated and primitive Linux is.

    13. Re:I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 3.0 release date: August 1990, i.e. 12 years ago.

    14. Re:I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      yes, they do.
      As a matter of fact caldera network desktop 1.0 ran linux kernel 1.2.13 and was elf based.
      another example was slackware 3.0 which was elf and used kernel 1.2.13 I believed.
      slackware 2.3 was a.out based, and it was the last a.out based distro by slackware.
      RH 1.0 was elf, and it used a 1.2.x kernel.
      so a 1.2.x could be ran on a.out or ELF, older kernels were only a.out, but newer ones had support for a.out for compatibility.

    15. Re:I thought... by javilon · · Score: 2

      Nah. As with most open-source projects, there is this sickly fear of ones-place-rollover in the version number. That's why you have so many programs with a version number like 0.9999.9.9.9.9.9.4

      Actually, that sort of version number is what you would expect if requirements don't change and you are _honest_. Basically you aproximate the perfect version (1.0 final) asimptotically, but never quite make it.

      --


      When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
    16. Re:I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you start from the latest release of some software and then start downgrading, do you? you are a low life piece of shit.

    17. Re:I thought... by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      Twelve years is, AFAIK, over 5 years.

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    18. Re:I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      12 years ago is "over 5 years ago".

    19. Re:I thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't you dare call Linux primitive

  4. 2.5.xx by NWT · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they continue like that, we'll soon have 2.5.100 ... chicks dig fancy kernel numbers.

    --
    Life sucks.
    1. Re:2.5.xx by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      High teeny version numbers are not uncommon in devel branches.

      The 2.1 series got as high as 2.1.132.

      --
      Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    2. Re:2.5.xx by dr_dank · · Score: 3, Funny

      Personally, I've got my money on Linux 2: Electric Bugaloo

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    3. Re:2.5.xx by mce · · Score: 1

      Some moons ago, Linus has been noted saying that the 2.x.100+ numbers were too large for his taste, tough.

  5. Wanna speed up the process? by GreyWolf3000 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    After the feature freeze, if as many people as possible test out the new features and provide bug reports to work on, maybe the impending issues can be fleshed out sooner.

    Unless, of course, Linus decides that there must be a set time between when the features are frozen and when the firse betas hit the servers.

    I'm getting fairly excited about this, even though I don't plan on using any of these new features. Does that mean I read /. too much? ;)

    --
    Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
    1. Re:Wanna speed up the process? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, like when I have tried my sound card (i845G under MANY versions of the kernel including 2.5.latest and 2.4.19+aclatest) and it doesn't work.

      They have a break; in there that doesn't belong. I removed it and it works. It is in EVERY kernel version. Why? No idea.

      if (!i810_ac97_exists(card,num_ac97)) {
      if(num_ac97 == 0)
      printk(KERN_ERR "i810_audio: Primary codec not ready.\n");
      break; /* I think this works, if not ready stop */
      }

      w/that single break the entire operation stops and doesn't end up init'd the AC_97 codec.

      Remove the break; and it is fixed.

      Now explain to me how this has made it through SO many kernel revisions w/o being found and I found it w/in 4 hours of installing Linux on a new machine?
      }

    2. Re:Wanna speed up the process? by dalutong · · Score: 4, Insightful


      They have a break; in there that doesn't belong. I removed it and it works. It is in EVERY kernel version. Why? No idea.


      because you never submitted a patch...

      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
    3. Re:Wanna speed up the process? by Whelkman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I regularly report bugs for certain pieces of software, but the kernel is too big of a beast for me. It is considered uncouth to report bugs which have already been reported, but you have to be kidding me if you think I have the time or perseverance to trudge through megabytes of mailing lists.

      Another problem is that of information gathering. With something like Gaim or XMMS I can accumulate all I need in a few minutes and fire off a bug report, but proper kernel debugging requires time consuming dumps and backtraces. However, since the kernel now officially supports a fairly modern compiler (GCC 2.95.3), one no longer has to downgrade to the stone age to properly debug.

      The 2.5 branch has been infinitely less stable for me compared to 2.3. Out of the twenty or so point releases I've tried, only three have actually booted. All have panicked when I tried to actually do something beyond log in at a prompt. My hardware is far from exotic (and is rock solid under 2.4, just to quell those accusations), so I assume the developers are aware of such showstoppers.

      Now I'm not insinuating the kernel is a crappy piece of software or whatever. In fact, I'm fairly convinced my problems are the fault of Via weirdness, but it's hard to test something which won't even boot properly, and I've run out of patience trying 2.5 builds.

      I guess you could say I'm lazy, but I'd rather do nothing at all than fill lists with halfway done bug reports, and I'm not dedicated enough to delve completely into 2.5's issues.

    4. Re:Wanna speed up the process? by Paul+Komarek · · Score: 2

      A patch has been submitted to lkml (not by me), round about 2.4.18. I sent a follow-up email to that patch today because I wanted it to get some attention. I had to do the same thing for an i810 today.

      -Paul Komarek

  6. Needs a better name by FearUncertaintyDoubt · · Score: 5, Funny

    How about "Linux XP" -- eXtended Procrastination

  7. 2.6?! by m0i · · Score: 5, Funny

    For most users, Linux is around 8.0 anyway :-) Don't ask'em the difference between linux and the packaging around it a.k.a distribution..

    --
    have you been defaced today?
    1. Re:2.6?! by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      this really isn't funny. It's an interesting point. Do most people really care that Linux is at version 2.6 or 3.0? No, not really.

      They want to push for 3.0 as a marketing tool, yet most companies that would even consider deploying Linux wouldn't be concerned w/the kernel version #'s. They are going to be concerned w/the distribution version #'s.

      After all, their support is probably going to come from the distribution manu, not IRC or a mailing list.

    2. Re:2.6?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mandrake 2.6.100 Linux 8.0 Get it straight man!

    3. Re:2.6?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's GNU/Mandrake 2.6.100 Linux 8.0.

    4. Re:2.6?! by G00F · · Score: 2

      actualy, I would say using 3.0 insted of 2.6 would be for corperate reasons. Look how MS has used the big jumps in version numbering (no .1 or .001 patching). And look to see how much money corperate america spends on them.

      Also, Sun did this, they went from 2.6 to 2.7 and called it 7, and now 8, etc.

      Personaly, what I'd like to see is 1.2.11 (Version.Features.BugFixes) Meaning its version 1 with 2 updates for featers and 11 fixes of bugs. Adding to the Version number would usualy be when breaking previous protocalls/apis/etc or a complete rewrite.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    5. Re:2.6?! by asteinberg · · Score: 3, Funny

      The thing I'm dreading about Linux hitting 3.0 is all the inevitable jokes posted to Slashdot about how they can't wait for Linux 3.1 or better still 3.11 for Workgroups. It seems to happen every time something closes in on that dreaded number (most recently with Debian and KDE).

      --
      The first ever Ultimate Frisbee video game: here (now
    6. Re:2.6?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you don't read it often enough. Those jokes have already begun.

      If you have a fear re kernel version #'s, I think you have more problems than anyone could know how to deal w/.

    7. Re:2.6?! by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      After all, their support is probably going to come from the distribution manu, not IRC or a mailing list.

      One would like to think. I can already see help support requests going to lkml...

  8. Re:Transmeta by Aanallein · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Why the digs at Intel in an article about Linux?
    Probably because (the title notwithstanding) it wasn't an article about Linux, but one about a wide variety of (semi-)interesting things Linus said on that cruise. Linux of course is a very important part of that, but not the only thing Linus has an opinion on.
  9. Re:Transmeta by cmeans · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Maybe because he's a human being and he's not happy that Intel has a strategy that could impact Transmeta (his employer) in a negative way.

  10. Re:Transmeta by James+Skarzinskas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I do find it curious that every time CNET posts an article about GNU/Linux that they make sure to include how Torvalds flames or doesn't support some massive product line. I'm guessing they just don't want to make him come across with the public very well.

  11. When it's ready... by NewbieSpaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What ever happened to the saying "When it's ready"? Or is that just a Redhat/Debian specific philos.?

    --
    ------
    Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
    1. Re:When it's ready... by bogie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think he feels that way as well. Its just that he has learned that the corporate world likes release dates and the one he "gave" is in all likelyhood a resonable estimate. I see nothing in the GNU/Linux philosophy that states that you can't try to set a schedule and stick to it. Just because Redhat says "when its done" doesn't mean there isn't a giant whiteboard at their headquarters saying a certain date is "D-day".

      Also this isn't some sort of sign of selling out, but I do think if anyone is to guesstimate when a release is likely, they talked to the right person. He is after all the final authority when it comes to releasing kernels.

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    2. Re:When it's ready... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, its just dumb.

    3. Re:When it's ready... by Gubble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Giving people dates to catch is a Good Thing. The assumption is that it will be ready then, if everyone tries to make it ready at that time. I don't think if the kernel is not more-or-less ready, he will release it anyway.

    4. Re:When it's ready... by rgmoore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AFAIK nothing happened to the "when it's ready" philosophy. But saying that it will actually be delieverd when it's ready doesn't preclude trying to estimate when that will be or trying to encourage people to get changes committed instead of procrastinating by giving reasonably hard deadlines. And that's what this is: it's an estimate of when things will be done and a target for developers to tell them when he wants them to be finished. It's certainly not a drop-dead, will be released by this date type of deadline.

      My impression from what I've read is that Linus is pretty happy with the features that have been implimented in the latest version, and that he thinks that most of the things that can actually be included within a reasonable time frame either have been put in already or can be put in by the end of the month. After that he plans a feature freeze, where no new things are added but existing features can still undergo changes, and then a code freeze, where no changes are allowed except for serious bug fixes. I don't see why it's unreasonable for him to give rough estimates of how long those things will take.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    5. Re:When it's ready... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Funny

      Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.

      People get turned on by the weirdest things.

      --

      I write in my journal
    6. Re:When it's ready... by NewbieSpaz · · Score: 1

      Way to karma-whore, my friend ;)

      --
      ------
      Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
    7. Re:When it's ready... by rgmoore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is a vaguely interesting thing. A coworker once mentioned a word that she typed entirely with one hand and speculated about what the longest such word was. Being a geek, I thought that the obvious solution was to write a perl script to find out. I found that the longest words that could be typed entirely with one hand (the left) were 12 letters long; the only one that might actually be used in ordinary usage was stewardesses. ISTR that the longest word typed entirely with the right hand was only 9 letters, but I don't remember any examples.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    8. Re:When it's ready... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      According to google, reverberated also qualifies for longest word typed solely with the left hand.
      Lollipop for the right

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    9. Re:When it's ready... by rgmoore · · Score: 1
      Lollipop for the right

      Not quite. Polyphony is longer.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    10. Re:When it's ready... by EvilGwyn · · Score: 2

      Not to put to fine a point on it, "stewardesses" is the sort of word you might *need* to type with one hand, if you know what I mean :)

      --
      Phear my l33t homepage.
    11. Re:When it's ready... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Good one. Thanks

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  12. I thought by standsolid · · Score: 1

    I thougt it was agrreed to mane the new kernel 3.1. 3.1 is better, as everyone knows. As a user, I am disappointed the new kernel will have to wait that long, but who's goung to argue? (That's a nice tie, Linus. Yes Mr. T, I'll wait another 6 months)

    --
    WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
    What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
    1. Re:I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, 3.11 will be a lot better than 3.1.
      What?
      Oh, this isn't Windows?

    2. Re:I thought by JebusIsLord · · Score: 2

      Though I'm not one to usually nitpick, man these 3.1/3.11 jokes are old and unfunny. Every time a goddamn program hits version 3 I get a shudder knowing that I'll soon be flooded by these witty remarks. Argh, pretty soon Glibc will be there too. *shudder*. Best reason I can think of for Linux to remain at 2.6.

      --
      Jeremy
  13. Huh? by StarHeart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have been hearing a feature freeze for early November. Can it really take 7-8 months to go from feature freeze to a final version? Or is Linus actually planning to make 2.6.0 what 2.X.18+ quality?

    --
    Havoc Penington, the bane of my Linux desktop.
    1. Re:Huh? by be-fan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, it takes a long time to get something release quality. 2.5.44 is already quite usable...if it compiles at all that is. It's that seemingly last little bit (getting all the old drivers updated to new interfaces, polishing up code, last minute bug fixes) that take a long time. Also, there are certain features (like Reiser4) that'll probably sneak in slightly after the feature freeze, because they don't really touch core code. From Kernel Traffic:

      Elsewhere, someone said they'd love to test these heading-toward-stable kernels, but didn't want to risk trashing their filesystem. They asked how likely that would be, and Linus replied:

      "Personal opinion (and only that): not much chance for a filesystem trashing. There's more chance of something just not _working_ than of disk corruption. Ie you may find that some driver you need doesn't compile because it hasn't been updated to the new world order yet, for example.
      And people still report problems booting, for example, whatever the reason. So make sure you have a working choice in your lilo configuration or whatever. But from what we've seen lately, there really aren't reports of corrupted disks or anything like that that I've seen. Which is obviously not to say that it couldn't happen, but it's not a very likely occurrence.
      That said, I can't set other peoples risk bars for them."

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. minor vs. major by m0i · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Btw, what would be the killer new stuff in the current devel kernel granting it a major version number upgrade to 3.0 instead of the regular minor to 2.6? They must have a good reason to do so, me thinks.

    --
    have you been defaced today?
    1. Re:minor vs. major by iabervon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There isn't a killer new feature this time. It's really the large number of major features since 2.X started. They didn't change all that much since 2.4, but there's very little that hasn't changed since 2.0, and it doesn't make sense to never change the major number just because you improve things at a steady rate.

      Or you could say that the number of minor version increases exponentially with respect to the major number, and, since the major number changed after 1.2, it should clearly change after 2.(2^2).

  16. Re:Transmeta by standsolid · · Score: 1

    Maybe becuase Linux works for transmeta. I'm not sure if that would have made the comment lean one way or another. AMD is also using money to help open source projects (including kernel) to be ported to x86-64, their new architechture.

    go opteron!

    --
    WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
    What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
  17. Docked in Jamaica. by Forge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The cruise docked in Jamaica and everybody had a ball.

    We were told that just a few of the speakers would be presenting in Jamaica so 3 of us drove down to the pier to colect them.

    Ha.

    we neaded all 3 cars plus 2 busses to haul them to "the Ruins". We sat ESR and Linux on a panel with 4 other senior geaks and asked them some lame questions for an hour or so.

    All the baby Linuses were there and Tove is realy cool. everybody seams to think the Coffee here is great (exact words: "The best I have ever tasted") so we will try to have a few bags ready for the next deligation.

    PS: No the Geak Cruise dosn't normaly hold talks on land for the locals. However JaLUG asked nicely :).

    Kevin Forge.
    Jamaica Linux Users Group. JaLUG
    Founding member.

    --
    --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    1. Re:Docked in Jamaica. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a Jamaican LUG?
      I'm on my way.

  18. Re:Transmeta by Silk · · Score: 1

    The article is about Linus' Thursday talk on the Geek Cruise. Cnet decided to pick "Torvalds: Next Linux due by June" as their headline so that the story would be picked up by other web sites. It worked.

    It'd be ridiculous for the headline to list all the points in the talk. He griped about OS X as well as IA-64. It's what he wanted to talk about and nothing more.

  19. WARNING: incorrect quote by kryps · · Score: 5, Informative

    He never said that.

    Nowhere in the article did he even imply anything like the last part of this quote (it's an all-new instruction set that the Transmeta Crusoe processors can't emulate). If you wanted to make a point you should have put this statement outside of the quote.

    I can't understand why the parent was modded up.

    -- kryps

    1. Re:WARNING: incorrect quote by Trusty+Penfold · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And we have a winner!

  20. Re:Oh look at the pretty pictures! by Tribbin · · Score: 0

    It sais: bash: /dev/fb0: Permission Denied :-)

    --
    If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  21. mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the original post was simply too misleading.... perhaps a missing ?

  22. Re:Transmeta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean:

    "I do find it curious that every time CNET posts an article about Linux"

  23. When 2.4 was released, didn't Linus say... by ScottBob · · Score: 5, Funny

    something to the effect of "Now you can hold your breath until 2.6 is released"?

    1. Re:When 2.4 was released, didn't Linus say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now you can hold your breath until 2.6 is released"

      Fuck, what will we do if they skip 2.6 and go right to 3.0?

  24. Re:Transmeta by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because IA-64 requires a lot of work to support for mediocre results on an atrociously expensive platform that appears to be on a glide path to catastrophic failure. Those efforts could be more productively spent elsewhere.

    Meanwhile, x86-64 is much simpler to support, the platform will be cost competitive with current top-of-the-line x86 systems, and you don't have to recompile all your programs if you don't want to. 4-way and 8-way multiprocessor systems ought to be semi-affordable too. In short, it's a far better philosophical and practical fit.

  25. Re:It's "GNU/Linux 2.6" by fok · · Score: 5, Informative

    No.. this is just the kernel... and it is called linux

    --
    \m/
  26. Re:Oh look at the pretty pictures! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    chmod then.

  27. woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    2.6k, right? so.. you mean 2600, right? Linux is used by hackers.. and now they named the kernel after their magazine. awesome!

  28. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 5, Funny

    " I don't play RPGs, I have a JOB. I don't watch anime, I have a LIFE."

    The fact that you've posted 24 comments in the last 3 days on /. tells me otherwise.

    Anyway, for the record, I play RPGs, I don't have a job, I watch lots of anime. According to you I "have no life". Why is it that I am blissfully happy then ?

    graspee

  29. Robert Love predicts January 2004 by Xpilot · · Score: 4, Informative

    In this interview with Robert Love in July, he predicted 18 months before 2.6 gets released(that would make the release early in 2004).

    I'm more inclined to go with Robert Love's estimate considering 2.4's late release.

    Offtopic : Hey, my story submission got accepted! :) Now that's a first.

    --
    "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    1. Re:Robert Love predicts January 2004 by sagei · · Score: 5, Informative

      In this interview with Robert Love in July, he predicted 18 months before 2.6 gets released(that would make the release early in 2004).

      I'm more inclined to go with Robert Love's estimate considering 2.4's late release.


      I think I may need to revise that (although I did go on to say a year from then, which would be summer of 2003)... the kernel is remarkably stable at this point and if we can stick to the freeze and get enough testers, I really believe we can have a code freeze in early 2003 and a release not too long thereafter. Five or six months from now seems very doable.

      And I really encourage testers. We need you. Part of the VM debacle in 2.4 was we just did not understand the corner-cases because there were not enough testers testing on enough different machines on enough different workloads. We need to know where catatrophic VM failures are, where areas of high latency exist, and in general where the bad behavior is. This kernel is remarkably better in all aspects than 2.4... it is very smooth. But it needs testers to ease us into a stable release.

      --

      Robert Love

  30. Re:Transmeta by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 1

    The transmeta crusoe can't even emulate x86 instructions at a reasonable speed. I mean this thing gets beat by the CELERON.

    --
    GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
  31. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Atrapose · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The Linux kernel is the largest work of collaborative genius that exists in today's software community. It's become important because people care about it (and its version numbers). A nerd is defined by his/her passion for technology. If you suggest they change their focus, then you're asking them to give in to the asses who tried to change my nation.

    Events that shape history need to be presented as history. If we continue to live out the horrors of our generation each day, nothing will get done. If a nerd somewhere sat on his ass playing video games before these attacks, then playing video games again _is_ getting on with life.

    If you want to help: survive; don't whine. So go away you... you... poo-poo head! :-

    ::I copied your sig::

  32. Nah, it's called YET ANOTHER WINDOWS KILLER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, like this other similar but not direct replacement OSS product. Any time OSS comes out with something that's a less functional copy of an MS product, it's a 'killer' of that product. Get it right!

  33. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by standsolid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Sorry for implying that, humble apologies.

    I'm not saying you don't have a job/life if you play rpgs/watch anime, that's ridiculous to imply a blanket statement. 24 comments isn't much considering i have school two days a week and 35hr/week job. I type fast too.

    --
    WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
    What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
  34. This just seems wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Ok, I can understand shoveling features into the kernel for fun, but I think that things are getting way beyond what is necessary for the real beach-head -- the desktop.

    I think it is time for a fork. DTLinux and SVLinux. DT for the desktop, SV for servers. I mean really, does Oscar Office Worker really need to hot swap processors? Come ON!.

    This is getting way out of hand, and resources that could be foucssed on the battle for the destkop (BFD (haha)) are being wasted on some sort of kernal probe thing that sounds painfull.

    Seriously, don't you think this kernel feature thing needs to stop!.

    -- ac ah home

    1. Re:This just seems wrong... by DaCool42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well the whole point about the kernel is that you only compile in what you need. If you want a stripped down version, you can easily build it that way.

      --

      ----
      All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
    2. Re:This just seems wrong... by Hrunting · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All right, I'll bite.

      That's why you run through the configuration utility before you compile the kernel. You don't need to branch the kernel source to limit features in the kernel. You just don't select them when you compile the kernel. Voila. Your kernel does not have those features. Do you think when Oscar Office Worker got that copy of Windows 2000 Workstation and Mitch MIS Admin got that copy of Windows 2000 Server, they came from different source repositories? I doubt it.

      With that said, the kernel source is getting gigantic, and it would be nice if they released source bundles geared towards those who might be compiling in more desktop-oriented features and those who might be compiling for a server.

    3. Re:This just seems wrong... by Vann_v2 · · Score: 1

      Since this is easily possible by just turning off (or on) certain options in the kernel configuration file, perhaps a better idea is to make some sort of "sock configurations." So you could do make dep-desktop, and it would use a different configuration file designed specifically for desktops. The same could be done for servers, or whatever else the kernel would be used for.

      It certainly seems a bit more sane than actually forking the kernel.

    4. Re:This just seems wrong... by uhoreg · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that's right! Instead of "wasting effort" putting both desktop and server features into the same kernel, we should fork Linux into two different projects! That'll really save a lot of effort! Sheesh. No wonder you're an AC.

      --

      To get something done, a committee should consist of no more than three persons, two of them absent.

    5. Re:This just seems wrong... by Webmonger · · Score: 2

      That's just silly. A lot of work this time around has gone into things like preemption and the O(N) scheduler that improve Linux's responsiveness as a desktop system.

    6. Re:This just seems wrong... by badhack · · Score: 2, Informative
      Technically, they replaced the 0(N) with the 0(1) scheduler. :)

      badhack

    7. Re:This just seems wrong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great idea. Forks worked so well for the commercial unices which, before linux arrived, were just on the verge of global domination.

    8. Re:This just seems wrong... by PurpleBob · · Score: 3, Funny

      Since this is easily possible by just turning off (or on) certain options in the kernel configuration file, perhaps a better idea is to make some sort of "sock configurations."

      So then if the kernel doesn't compile, at least it can keep your feet warm.

      --
      Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
    9. Re:This just seems wrong... by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1
      With that said, the kernel source is getting gigantic, and it would be nice if they released source bundles geared towards those who might be compiling in more desktop-oriented features and those who might be compiling for a server.

      What if you just downloaded the config scripts, and thereby obtained a list of source files to be automatically downloaded and compiled?

      'Course, a server hosting the kernel would have to handle a zillion hits a second. But maybe that's preferable to than serving up terabytes of stuff that doesn't need to be sent.

  35. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    someday, when nerds rule the world and microsoft has fallen, You will be the idiot who can't install linux and will crawl to us. Even if the earth is one flat patch of dirt.

    But I thought Linux had finally gotten easy to install!

    I don't watch anime, I have a LIFE

    The two can co-exist.

    You're just as much of a dick as the parent. Quit generalizing everything, especially the Middle East.

  36. Re:Transmeta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe becuase Linux works for transmeta.

    "Linux" ??? I hope you realize his name is Linus.

  37. Re:It's "GNU/Linux 2.6" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you can compile it with other compilers beyond GCC and can use other userland beyond GNU over it, so you can just call it "linux". Until there, bend over and accept that most of the credit linux (Linus in particular) has had is due to GNU software.

  38. Inanium by Animats · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Because IA-64 requires a lot of work to support for mediocre results on an atrociously expensive platform that appears to be on a glide path to catastrophic failure. Those efforts could be more productively spent elsewhere.

    That's the best one-sentence indictment of the Inanium I've seen to date.

    Intel's plan was to come up with a new, different architecture that no one could clone because Intel had patents on key parts. They did. But it wasn't a better, new, different architecture. It was worse. So it seems headed for the Intel niche processor department, along with the i860 and i960, both of which are quite reasonable RISC machines that nobody cared about.

    AMD's 64-bit architecture is straightforward. It's IA-32 expanded to 64 bits, with a few more registers and some of the little-used stuff removed. That's not hard to support. With Linux support, that's likely to be the mainstream machine for cost-effective server farms for the next five years or so. Assuming AMD ships the thing soon.

    1. Re:Inanium by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because IA-64 requires a lot of work to support for mediocre results on an atrociously expensive platform that appears to be on a glide path to catastrophic failure. Those efforts could be more productively spent elsewhere.

      That's the best one-sentence indictment of the Inanium I've seen to date.

      That's two sentences.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Inanium by haruchai · · Score: 1

      That's quite possibly the very first time I've seen a Slashdot post refer to IA32 as "straightforward".

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    3. Re:Inanium by zozzi · · Score: 1
      Rubbish. AMD is the same ageing thing pushed further. There are dozens of things which Intel corrected with Itanium:

      Registers: 128 general registers, 128 floating point (no more register juggling crap)

      Register rotation

      Branch Hints to improve prefetching and stuff

      Prediction is mega cool. When you have a branch in C saying something like:

      if (a) { b=c+d; }

      if (e) {h=i-j;}

      this is transformed to

      cmp.ne p1,p2=a,r0

      cmp.ne p3,p4=e,r0

      (p1)add b=c,d

      (p3)sub h=i,j

      When the compares execute p1 gets set to true and p2 to false (or vice versa). Then when it encounters the statements (p1) and (p3) it checks whether to execute them or not.

      Notice the difference yet?

      In Itanium, the processor can theoretically execute all those instructions at once, no branches to flush pipelines and so on. Adding more processors should become much easier too and get a much more fine-grained execution. Try doing that with the "superior AMD". The dependencies in Itanium code are explicitly programmed so the processors knowswhat it can execute in parallel. In contrast, old x86 processors have to try and analyse code in real time - a very complex time-consuming task and in no way as accurate.

      Most people speak negatively about the Itanium because they've read reports that it's slow. That's true for Itanium 1 but Itanium 2 is much much better and Intel has already confirmed that it has 5 more currently in development. There's a learning curve and this I suspect is the major blocking factor since people are scared to suddenly find that they have to relearn many things.

      The other major reason for the slow uptake is that it takes a lot of work to create decent compilers since a lot of work has shifted from the hardware to the software side.

      So please give it some time and have a good look at it's potential rather than requoting some crap out of a dumb witted reviewer. x86 has no future for scaleability without major juggling on the programmer's part. With Itanium, performance scaleability is assured.

      --
      ---
    4. Re:Inanium by Sri+Lumpa · · Score: 1

      "Intel's plan was to come up with a new, different architecture that no one could clone because Intel had patents on key parts"

      Am I the only one that read that as the exact reason why IBM came up with the PS/2 (and why it didn't work)?

      --
      "The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
    5. Re:Inanium by Animats · · Score: 2
      • Having lots of programmer-visible registers isn't as useful as it used to be. Sparc machines have lots of registers, too, but it doesn't do as much for performance as it used to. Modern superscalar x86 machines have upwards of 40 data registers inside the CPU, even though the programmer-visible set is much smaller. Register renaming makes this about as useful has having lots of programmer-visible ones. Having a small number of registers also makes task switching easier - less state to save.
      • As for the example, almost everything on the market since the Pentium Pro has been able to look ahead at least that far. For that matter, the CDC 6600 of the 1960s could parallelize that example.
      • The big problem with explicit parallism machines is that the compiler needs to be very smart, and the longer the look-ahead required, the smarter it needs to be. The HP compiler team was having real problems with this a few years ago, but there's probably been progress since then.
      • Worse, the compiler for an explicit-parallelism machine needs to know the timing constraints of the specific machine it is targeting. This means different binaries are required for optimal performance on different implementations of the same architecture. MIPS machines used to require that, and it was a giant pain.
      Admittedly, IA-32 isn't that great an architecture, but it's turned out to be OK.
  39. No more 9.9-pre-beta-5116.0002-r3-pre-patch-ac4-02 by dattaway · · Score: 4, Informative

    To prevent this dreaded war upon version numbers, a good formula would be something like:

    V=1-1/X

    As your revisions increment, you will be closer to the famed 1.0 release, but never quite there. The press can always ask, "ARE WE THERE YET?" and always be told, "IN A FEW MINUTES!"

  40. Re:Transmeta by MentlFlos · · Score: 5, Insightful
    My brother has that neato little futitsu transmeta powered laptop. It isn't going to win any speed records, but it does a damn fine job at running VERY cool and it just sips the battery unlike all the intel laptops I have owned in the past (with the exception of my old toshiba p-266mmx... that thing was a tank).

    By far, it is not a desktop replacement, but when that isn't how you try and use it you are fine. Their cpu was not built to be a killer-super-fast-cpu (and it isn't). I bet if I sit you down on a computer powered by an 800mhz transmeta and a p4 2ghz, you won't even be able to tell the difference with "normal*" tasks.

    It all comes down to how one plans on using the technology. Just because _you_ think it is unacceptably slow does not mean others think the same thing. I used to upgrade my PC all the time because it just wasn't fast enough. I stopped doing that around the 1ghz mark because now it is fast enough. To throw a good quote in here... "A blur is just a blur." (this quote was back when doing a 'dir' in dos scrolled by in a blur on a 486sx-33, and it looked the same on a pentium-233.)

    *Normal being just checking mail, AIM (or your IM client of choice), Web browsing, Generic stuff like that. Of course this assumes that everything else is the same (HD speed, ram size etc).

    bah, I'll just submit this now

  41. Re:Transmeta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Friend, Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. Using it in a diluted form, ("GNU/Linux") is against the rules. Please make a note of this in the future.

  42. Re:It's "GNU/Linux 2.6" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Meanwhile, you need to bend over and accept that Linux is a registered trademark owned by Linus Torvalds. Diluting that trademark (by saying things like "GNU/Linux," for example) is against the law. It doesn't matter how much GNU software Linus uses. He says to call it Linux, so you call it Linux, motherfucker.

    If you don't like it, go download FreeBSD. That way you don't have to deal with Linus or RMS. It wins two ways!

  43. Re:Transmeta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well that's his problem if he keeps flaming some massive product line isn't it? If he tells it to a reporter, they're free to publish it.

  44. That feature list is just the late list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    That list is just the list of features that are not yet merged and thus need an imminent decision before the feature freeze next Thursday. It's also not especially long or impressive, since these are minor features and a much greater number of patches of that kind are already in. Of the stuff on that list, probably only IPSEC and one of the LVM replacements (needed since LVM1 has been removed) will impact most users, though the crash dumps would also be nice.

    The significant changes in 2.6 will be the new block layer and attendant performance/scalability improvements, the new NPTL thread support, ALSA, and the XFS and JFS merges. See Guillaume Boissiere's list for more.

    1. Re:That feature list is just the late list by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      Anyone know what the status is of the O(1) scheduler is in relation to 2.6??

      I've seen/read nothing but good stuff about it but never heard if it is the basis for the scheduler for 2.6? Anyone?

    2. Re:That feature list is just the late list by badhack · · Score: 2, Informative
      It is the scheduler in 2.6. As far as I am aware, the only major shortcoming is it's lack of hyperthreading support.

      badhack

    3. Re:That feature list is just the late list by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Thanks! Nice to know.

  45. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by ojplg · · Score: 1

    Anyway, for the record, I play RPGs, I don't have a job, I watch lots of anime. According to you I "have no life". Why is it that I am blissfully happy then ?

    Because you enjoy being supported by you super-model wife?

  46. Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2.2.14 is perfect.

  47. pallidium support ? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 3, Funny
    Just kidding.

  48. Linux and Main by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come we seem to suddenly get lots of links to Linux and main, is there astroturfing going on?

    1. Re:Linux and Main by Joe+Enduser · · Score: 1

      And, even more disturbingly, it's the same link every time!

  49. Compatibility is not the issue by mbrubeck · · Score: 5, Informative
    Linux goes to 3.x when it breaks compatability with 2.x.

    Nope. In this lkml thread, Linus says:

    We've never had that as any criteria for major numbers in the kernel. Binary compatibility has _never_ been broken as a release policy, only as a "that code is old, and we've given people 5 years to migrate to the new system calls, the old ones are TOAST".

    The only policy for major numbers has always been "major capability changes". 1.0 was "networking is stable and generally usable" (by the standards of that time), while 2.0 was "SMP and true multi-architecture support". My planned point for 3.0 was NuMA support, but while we actually have some of that, the hardware just isn't relevant enough to matter.

  50. Kernel Traffic summary by mbrubeck · · Score: 3, Informative
    Kernel Traffic has a good summary of the 2.6 vs 3.0 discussion. In one post, Linus writes:
    I see no real reason to call it 3.0.

    The order-of-magnitude threading improvements might just come closest to being a "new thing", but yeah, I still consider it 2.6.x. We don't have new architectures or other really fundamental stuff. In many ways the jump from 2.2 -> 2.4 was bigger than the 2.4 -> 2.6 thing will be, I suspect.

    But hey, it's just a number. I don't feel that strongly either way. I think version number inflation (can anybody say "distribution makers"?) is a bit silly, and the way the kernel numbering works there is no reason to bump the major number for regular releases.

    1. Re:Kernel Traffic summary by HiThere · · Score: 2

      So after we're done with the 2.8 version, we'll start working on the 2.10 version.

      You didn't think those were numbers did you? You don't get numbers like 2.4.19.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  51. Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's really great that the number 1 portion of Andreas Pour's KGX will be released!

    Now nothing will stop KGX from killing that monopolist M$ on the desktop!

  52. RMS is angry. Very angry. by hal9000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The next version of the heart of the Linux operating system is expected by June, project founder and leader Linus Torvalds predicted on Thursday.

    RMS is blowing steam out his ears. Heart of the Linux OS?! AHHHHHHHHHH!!

    "It's OK, Richard, just have a seat and breeeeathe it out. Let it out. That's right... Gooood."

    --
    Look out honey, 'cause I'm using technology; Ain't got time to make no apology
  53. Some CRUCIAL patches here by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    7) High resolution timers (George Anzinger, etc.) Home page: http://high-res-timers.sourceforge.net/ Sourceforge download page for this patch: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers Descriptions of each patch: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103 557676007653&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103 557677207693&w=2 http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=103 558349714128&w=2 Linus had concerns with this one (possibly resolved?): http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/ Oct/3463.html

    A must for embedded systems.

    13) MMU-less processor support (Greg Ungerer) Announcement with lots of links: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/ Oct/7027.html

    Makes Linux dramatically more useful (without funky patching) for (again) embedded systems, especially given the coldfire 683xx support.

    11) Kexec, luanch new linux kernel from Linux (Eric W. Biederman) Announcement with links: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/ Oct/6584.html And this thread is just too brazen not to include: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/ Oct/7952.html

    What can I say about this? Another must for embedded systems, and really nice for an enterprise-wide context.

    20) Initramfs (Al Viro) Way back when, Al said: http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2001- 30/0110.html I THINK this is the most recent patch: ftp://ftp.math.psu.edu/pub/viro/N0-initramfs-C40 And Linus recently made happy noises about the idea: http://lists.insecure.org/lists/linux-kernel/2002/ Oct/1110.html

    Need I tell you why this is handy?

    I'll settle for just the above features but the LVM patches seem like they'd be insanely handy, the console rewrite seems like a very good idea, and the non-high-resolution POSIX timers are a good idea, too. Anything POSIX should be a priority since (hopefully) it makes code more willing to compile on more platforms. Provided people actually use the calls correctly.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  54. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It amazes me how stupid slashbots are.

    A cut-ant-paste troll that bits as hard as it does astounds me.

  55. Re:Wrestlemania 2.6 by beaubell · · Score: 1

    As for Celebrity Deathmatch, Lets make it Linus and Bill Gates as not to confuse the layman watching. Then, At least 20 percent of the viewers would know why this pair was fighting.

  56. Re:ALL RESPONDENTS HBT. THL. HA Bad D. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or maybe they're just bored d8----)

  57. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by bsane · · Score: 1

    Anyway, for the record, I play RPGs, I don't have a job, I watch lots of anime. According to you I "have no life".

    No doubt, the biggest obstacle in my life is the fact that I have a job...

  58. I'm glad Linus seems to be sticking to 2.6 by timothy · · Score: 1

    It's perhaps more an aesthetic issue than anything else (after all, it's his, and if Linus decides to call the next Big Release 3.0 or 2.83986 or "Peggy" or anything else, I can't stop him), but I'm happy that so far he seems to be holding out, calling the next one 2.6 however equivocally.

    It goes with the idea of "underpromise and overdeliver" which seems like a smart one to stick to, in software particularly. A series of pleasant, quietly presented surprises is much better than the sour taste of Not Quite What Was Promised. Outside of a minority (those who in particular care about Free software, and in particular the almighty GNU/Linux operating system in some form or another) within a minority (those people who give > a tinker's cuss about computers / computing at all), no one will care about the version number -- but since context matters, so do those people, however few.

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    1. Re:I'm glad Linus seems to be sticking to 2.6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phrase "tinker's dam" has nothing to do with 'cussing'. One of the things tinkers did was repair pots and pans. A clay ring was used when repairing a hole, and this ring is the dam. It has no purpose or use after the repair, hence the whole phrase was "not worth a tinker's dam" to express something truly worthless.

  59. Harry Potter? by MyHair · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    So, Linux 2.6 will come out about the same time as the new Harry Potter book? Maybe it will be a joint release.

  60. Needs modules, not more kernel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is silly, if everything was modular you could have a thousand people working on everything and things would go much faster.
    Want a server? use those modules, want USB, it's a module!
    Why Linus is "so busy" with this is beyond me, just make it so everything is a plug in module and away we go.
    The kernel should be very simple and the root of all the modules.
    Someone fix it!

    1. Re:Needs modules, not more kernel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean the HURD...

  61. Re:FTM says Bush2.0 is a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Erm, parent not troll... 'tis truu ... Bush (shrubby) is a shameless nincompoop terrorist.

    Irak war is about Oil and oil only.

  62. Warez by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh, bugger waiting, I'm gonna fire up Kazaa right now and download the warez beta!!

    Linux 3.0beta here I come

  63. Re:No more 9.9-pre-beta-5116.0002-r3-pre-patch-ac4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    informative? funny yes, informative no. jesus..moderators are on crack

  64. Thank you [OT] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not relevant to the discussion, but i would just like you to know your post was appreciated. I had been rather confused trying to figure out why anyone would want support for MMU-less machines, and your post answered that nicely. Thank you.

  65. Re:It's "GNU/Linux 2.6" by AndroSyn · · Score: 1

    Last I checked FreeBSD used GCC to compile itself too. So RMS wins again :P

  66. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by GnomeKing · · Score: 2

    Anyway, for the record, I play RPGs, I don't have a job, I watch lots of anime. According to you I "have no life". Why is it that I am blissfully happy then ?

    Drugs do that to you.

  67. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

    "Because you enjoy being supported by you super-model wife?"

    Dude, if only. The last time I so much as *kissed* a woman was 1993, and as for sex we're talking the 80s. In fact George Micheal has had sex with a woman more recently than me. (I am totally the geek stereotype).

    But hey, there's blissfully happy without sex. I think the shit you have to deal with in a relationship far outweighs the good anyway. (But then I would say that, wouldn't I?).

    Moderate accordingly. I don't care.

    graspee

  68. Yikes! Don't rush it (feel my ooopses). by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a DVD drive and a CDR drive (both IDE). I'm using SCSI emulation (of course ya gotta to burn under Linux). With 2.5.43 if I do a cdrecord -scanbus I get a kernel ooops. Heh. Works good under 2.4. Hope they get that sorted out before the start calling it 2.6. :)

  69. So... little time, little money by GC · · Score: 2

    but what is Alan Cox up to these days?

    Have to say, Linux kernel releases have never really lived up to their word... I seem to remember Linus talking about "release often, release early", but that actually turned into a pile of crap.... we waiting eons for 2.4...

    My advice: "Don't hold you breath for 2.6!!!!"

    1. Re:So... little time, little money by chip_s_ahoy · · Score: 1

      Nonsense.

      Go to kernel.org, releases are very frequent, on both the stable and development kernel. And Alan Cox's branch. Released just as fast as developed. ...Or do you mean you want releases ending in ".0" to happen all the time?

  70. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. That's almost enough to make me devote myself to tracking down your real name and posting it to this thread... Almost. It wasn't a two minute process, though, so you escape for now.

  71. I disagree -- avoids inflation by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It isn't that there's a "fear of ...rollover". It's that open source types that aren't marketing their code have the luxury of making the version numbers actually mean something. Apps can change major version numbers when the file format changes. Libraries when compatibility-breaking ABI changes take place.

    If you have a marketing department, *they* want to jack the major version numbers constantly so that it looks like one "must" upgrade, or because it makes the changes look better.

    Frankly, I'd prefer 2.6 over 3.0. The kernel's performance has been improved, but there's been no rearchitecting. I consider it a bit of a mark of pride.

    Also, people complaining in many of these posts about the number of devel releases before a stable -- be sure that you aren't the *same* people complaining about lack of QA on the stable branch, as this is what it's intended to fix.

  72. Oh, calm down by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    Look, there's a lot of good arguments to *not* release on a more frequent cycle.

    First, stable releases suck for a lot of developers. A lot of people do this in their spare time, and all of a sudden they have a bunch of deadlines.

    Second, feature freezes reduce devel speed, since a lot of developers (who *could* be doing work) have to cool their heels and wait for everyone to stablilize their code.

    Third, there's context switching time. It's a lot of work to release a new stable kernel, and you have to put out this big chunk of work, pretty everything up...and that's time that could be more productively spend working on features to go into the next release.

    What specific features in the new kernel do you need? Tens of thousands of threads? Linus *still* says it's a dumb idea to have more threads than processors, so unless you have a machine with 10K processors, it's not a big deal. Sure, it makes for sexy benchmarks, but they're pointless for real world apps.

    Latency? This is nice, but it's mostly helpful for hard realtime systems. From a user standpoint, the time latency is an issue (assuming you're doing the HZ-redefine, etc stuff that you can do with 2.4) pretty much exclusively when the disk is saturated with requests and part of an app needs to be swapped in or a file read.

    ALSA? I already use it, as do quite a few distros. I know that at least SuSE uses it out of box, and it's pretty easy to build.

    Most of the changes seem to be pretty small (though cute). New driver work, input changes, the ability to use the PC speaker as a microphone...

  73. Or Daylight Savings time... by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 2

    Or Daylight Savings time, as observed by most operating systems: ...
    1:00 = 1 hour till you switch your clock. ...
    1:50 = 10 minutes till you switch the clock.
    1:55 = 5 minutes till you switch your clock.
    1:00 = 1 hour till you switch your clock. ...
    1:50 = 10 minutes till you switch the clock.
    1:55 = 5 minutes till you switch your clock. ...
    1:50 = 10 minutes till you switch the clock.
    1:55 = 5 minutes till you switch your clock.

    --
    "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
  74. Re:Wrestlemania 2.6 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If RMS had ever delivered a HURD kernel that wasn't just a toy, I'd consider his views on kernel development tools. Ideology and incompetence are a painful mix.

  75. Re:It's "GNU/Linux 2.6" by fok · · Score: 1

    I call the system GNU/Linux, if we are only talking about the kernel, I call it Linux. I call all my systems GNU/Linux 'cause I use GNU tools, but, again, I call the kernel linux, 'cause that's the name of the kernel: linux. Get it?

    --
    \m/
  76. Re:It's "GNU/Linux 2.6" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uhm, so how does RMS win? gcc is just a compiler, that has the gnu license and FreeBSD happens to use it.

    shut up.

  77. IBM by frankie_guasch · · Score: 1
    I see IBM works in some of the features:

    EVMS (Enterprise Volume Management System) (IBM, Contact: Kevin Corry)

    Kernel Probes (IBM, contact: Vamsi Krishna S)

    Kernel Hooks (IBM contact: Vamsi Krishna S.)

    It's nice to see.

  78. Re:Transmeta by James+Skarzinskas · · Score: 1

    My mistake, sorry. I did mean simply the kernel, yet I added the "GNU/" on habit.

  79. If you want to hear C-NET's source for yourself... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the .ogg file containing the entire uncut session has been put up at the enclosed URL (with permission from both Linus and Neil Bauman. You see, C-Net had someone on the geekcruises mailing list, and Neil announced the upload thursday evening... not exactly crack journalism, but you can listen and judge for yourself. I tried to let Linux Today know, but apparently word didn;t get through to 'em.)

    All I ask is that someone please mirror the thing and reply here with the mirror. Although I put the machine on an OC-12 line, the server is a mere P3-500/192MB RAM/RH 7.1 box.

    The URL is http://205.122.23.229/peng/linusq-a.ogg (approx. 38MB)

    Cheers,
    --
    TJ Miller jr
    OS/Networking Instructor
    Utah College of Applied Technology

  80. 2600 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows XP is Build 2600. Does that mean 31337 h4x0rz use Windows XP? (Grinning, ducking and running...)

  81. *agreement* by Dave_bsr · · Score: 2

    couldn't have put it better myself.

    --


    Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
  82. Linux XP by magwm · · Score: 1

    let's call it linux XP. and keep the version number at 2.6 so there will be a MASSIVE improvement in user eXPerience with little rearchitechturing!

  83. Re:Get some PRIORITIES! by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 1

    " Wow. That's almost enough to make me devote myself to tracking down your real name and posting it to this thread... Almost. It wasn't a two minute process, though, so you escape for now."

    So who cares if you do find out my real name ? Everyone who knows me knows these things already. I have no shame and I'm brutally honest. Who would be laughing at me who wasn't already? If you put my address are /.ers going to knock on my door then laugh and run away ? (It's getting near Halloween so I would probably misinterpret their actions anyway).

    graspee

  84. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    Take the folks at Coca-Cola. For many years, they were content
    to sit back and make the same old carbonated beverage. It was a good
    beverage, no question about it; generations of people had grown up
    drinking it and doing the experiment in sixth grade where you put a
    nail into a glass of Coke and after a couple of days the nail dissolves
    and the teacher says: "Imagine what it does to your TEETH!" So Coca-Cola
    was solidly entrenched in the market, and the management saw no need to
    improve ...
    -- Dave Barry, "In Search of Excellence"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...