Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linus Torvalds On Linux 2.6

Posted by Hemos on from the checking-in-with-the-man dept.

ceebABC writes "Linus Torvalds talks about the upcoming Linux 2.6 kernel, in an interview with eWEEK. Linus discusses the scalability and memory management in the new kernel. They also have a story about what's supposed to be in Linux 3.0."

4 of 323 comments (clear)

  1. I am glad but I also wish by codepunk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am glad the mid level scsi stuff now works correctly with SAN environments but I wish opengfs and or ocfs had made it into the tree before the feature freeze. I guess for now I have to just resort to running a proprietary clustered file system.

    --


    Got Code?
  2. What is up with the LVM? by emil · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why isn't Sistina's LVM making it into the kernel? SUSE has been including it as standard in their distribution for some time.

    I don't track the LKML at all. I'm curious why XFS made it in, but LVM did not.

  3. Re:what is up? by 4of12 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Amen.

    I read the eWeek article about 2.6 and have surfed through the lkml to see what's going in and what's not.

    I see Hans Reiser making an impassioned plea to get ReiserFS 4.0 into 2.5, the EVMS team nobly accepting temporary exile in userland, and others griping that LVM won't be in 2.6 and have to wait until 3.0

    Given stuff that won't be in 2.6 and will be deferred until 3.0, what I want to know is:

    "What useful feature WON'T be in Linux 3.0? Will the Linux of 2005 be practically finished as an operating system?"
    --
    "Provided by the management for your protection."
  4. Re:what is up? by William+Tanksley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    No, there's plenty more to do. As a very simple example, the driver organization is still very much in flux; devfs is under fire, and alternates are springing up.

    On a higher level, the way we handle multiple processors could very well entirely change (if Larry McVoy has his way, and I think he's right). The result might be a kernel which runs very well on a single processor, but is perfectly scalable to thousands of processors.

    -Billy