Slashdot Mirror
Last 2.5.x Linux Kernel Released
Kourino writes "Today on LKML,
Linus released 2.5.75, which he said will be "the last 2.5.x kernel from me", and that he and Andrew Morton are going to start a 2.6-pre series soon. While this certainly does mean things could get interesting soon, don't hold your breath about seeing the actual 2.6 for a while; there are still many areas that need work. This essentially means that the development branch is going into maintenance mode, and new features probably won't get in after this point. Changes of note in 2.5.75 include a merge of the anticipatory scheduler from Andrew Morton's -mm tree and updates from several architectures."
What about Reiser4?
Just name it 2.6 - everyone will flock to it because 2.even means that it must be a stable release, never mind it's the first release.
:)
Bitching will ensue, and the bugs will get fixed even quicker. Why mess around with all the pre-2.6 stuff, when this is obviously the fastest way to get it all working
Will the 2.6 "stable" kernel series actually be stable?
The 2.4 series had this public cloud of wierd problems hanging over it its entire existence. It seems like 2.4 never really seemed "trustworthy", they kept making huge and highly experimental changes and 2.4 seemed just kind of like a work in progress for its entire run. Will 2.6.0 be totally safe to download and run and install in a production environment, or is that going to be kind of a "well thats still sort of experimental be careful"? And if the latter, why the heck aren't they staying in 2.5 until it's ready for production.
Am I just too paranoid, or do you know what i mean?
-- anonymous and terrified
the anticipatory scheduler, because I haven't been expecting them to do that yet.
"Linux 2.5.x? Pssh. That's old! I run linux 9.0!"
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
The SNARE folks say they are working to get C2-style auditing capability in the kernel, since the old hooks were broken/fixed in 2.4.21. This is a big feature that is keeping Linux from being a "serious" player in "secure" environments, such as certain government-controlled areas.
So why would they set the feature freeze for Halloween if new features wont be allowed in after mid July?? Or does the feature freeze have nothing to do with features being added? I'm highly confused.
Maintenance mode? No, 2.2 is in maintenance mode.
2.4 isn't even in "maintenance" mode yet - it is _the_ stable tree, and its getting new things added to it with each release (slowly, and after being tested in other trees, and RCs). Just recently new ACPI for example.
2.5 is going into "stabalisation" mode, to get it ready enough for 2.6.0 that it won't piss too many people off who try it. 2.5 has been a good cycle and 2.6.0 will be quite stable, but it needs to go through a few 2.6 point releases during which more and more people will start testing it.
Then _2.4_ will go into "maintenance" mode.
Those of you who want to use the closed NVidia drivers with 2.5 can find the necessary patches here
2.5.71 also introduced a new native mode driver for synaptics touchpads. You'll need to download the X11 driver and I saw it mentioned that the cvs version of GPM has support if you use that as well.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Linux definition: On most hardware platforms, a jiffy is 10 milliseconds in duration.
In other Engineering and science diciplines there are other definitions of "jiffy".
In English, it means "a short amount of time" as in "I'll do it in a jiffy".
I have a feeling I am going to be modded as a troll but I have karma to burn.
I use to be a big fan of linux but the latest 2.4x came with a bad vm in the so called stable release branch and I heard of dismal uptimes for smp systems with 4 or more processors. Infact Debian still uses the 2.2 kernel by default because of the bugs sorrounding 2.4
I am no longer in IT but if I was I would be more in favor of FreeBSD. I heard 5.0 is alot more scalable then the 4.x branch.
Anyway its reputation for those who are not Linux fanatics on slashdot will be better. Linux 2.0 was rock solid. However the quality has gone down hill recently. Yes Linux 2.4 can scale quite well but in real world uses filesystem corruptions, xinet freezing, and kernel panics happen on smp hardware.
Since Linus now wors at OSDL he can now test these features on high end hardware. Linux is stable on pc class hardware but that is all most kernel hackers have to test the kernel.
http://saveie6.com/
Linus Torvalds and Alan Cox made a joint press release today. In an effort to save time, Linux 2.5.75 will be renamed 2.6.75, to reflect how mature they assume the code is. "We don't feel like bothering with all that 'pre-' crap, so we thought we'd save some time and just jump right into 2.6" reasonned Torvalds. Alan Cox elaborated that "when MS Windows went frm 3.11 staight to 95, they really left us behind. Now that they're at 2003, we've really got to get our shit together to catch up".
-
Why We Should All Test the New Linux Kernel -
Japanese
-
Using Test Suites to Validate the Linux Kernel
-
Japanese
The Open Source Development Lab's Japanese facility was kind enough to provide the Japanese translations.I am looking for translations into other languages for all my Linux Quality Database articles - there are other articles on web application quality and C++ programming, and more will be posted from time to time.
They are all under the GNU Free Documentation License, but for reasons explained in Which License for Free Documentation? I am planning to change the license soon to another one.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
You kids and your new fangled "2.5". Back in my day, the kernel was 0.1, and the only supported boot device was a piece of toast. And we liked it better that way! Stable, unstable? Kids these days are so ungrateful. Back in my day, when linux crashed, not only did it erase your hardrive, but it put you into seizures! But it built character, and that's the way we liked it!
====
Crudely Drawn Games
There is only really module-init-tools, rather than modutils.
The main reason for this change is that there is now a kernel level module loader. This is for various changes, so that drivers will be handled in exactly the same manner whether they are loaded as a module, or included in the main kernel image. This makes a number of problems in driver writing, and a bunch of idiosyncrities just go away. For example, you should be able to load multiple copies of a driver, compiled into the main kernel. Previously, you had to use them as modules to work that trick. This is important in situations like three identical soundcards.
I believe that is the only required (significant and normally needed) chage to userland tools. Other tools will benefit from updating, to support new features, but that's always the case, and not required. Note that the kernel aught to boot without it - just be less useful if you use modules.
It's worth noting that the sound infrasturcture changed from OSS, to primerly ALSA. OSS is still in, but marked DEPRECATED, so at some point over 2.6, you aught to expect to shift to ALSA sound. It aught to be painless - ALSA supports OSS emulation, so you can phase apps through that. I can't think of any other userland level changes for 2.5 (at least, that impact on your average commodity PC desktop / server - If your're using LVM / md stuff, I think that there might be a shift in there).
One fun change is that you shouldn't need to use ide-scsi emulation to drive CD burners anymore (though that'll require updating userland tools). That's a really useful one, particulary for newcomers [0].
[0] Windows actually also does the 'pretend it's a SCSI device' trick too - but hides it a lot better.
Here's a good pointer: Dave's "post-Halloween" doc.
Today LKML confirmed that linux is dying.
Linus was quoted as saying this will be "the last kernel".
This announcement, of course, has the same high validity as the claim that *BSD is dying.
I protested the release of 2.4, saying its inclusion in distros would cause users to unknowingly run a poor quality kernel, but Linus said the reason he wanted it released was so that it would get more widespread testing.
The "stable" branch of the kernel is perhaps misnamed. Linus gets to release a new kernel whenever he wants, and I imagine he does some testing, but I don't think he puts a stable release through any kind of rigourous qualification, I think it's more like when the complaints about his pre- versions die down a little.
I know it's common for Linus to release stable kernels that are actually quite broken on some non-x86 architectures. People who run Linux on PowerPC use a branch that's extensively patched from Linus' releases.
Both the 2.4 and 2.2 kernels went through a number of releases before they were really usable. I think the reason 2.2 became reliable was that it was smaller and simpler, and fewer people were working on it.
I'm pretty sure a good part of the reason behind the establishment of the Open Source Development Lab and their hiring of prominent kernel developers like Linus and Andrew Morton is to make sure that 2.6 actually does turn out to be enterprise quality. IBM is a big backer of OSDL, and I don't think they want the billion dollar investment in Linux in general to go to waste.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Well, some of the nice things are:
o New i/o scheduler, which seems to improve a lot of people's desktop performance;
o Better scheduler performance under loads with lots of processes;
o Rewritten scheduling and threading code, which, coupled with Ulich Drepper's NTPL library, greatly improves threading performance;
o ALSA for sound, and AGP 3 support;
o Faster and cleaner framebuffer support;
o Faster CD recording that doesn't need ide-scsi;
o Upgrades for NFS (v4), NTFS, and HFS+, as well as merges of JFS and XFS;
o System-level in-kernel profiling support;
o CPU Frequence scaling
o IPSec
More information can be found in Dave Jones' list of things to expect in 2.6. Personally, I think it's great to see features that benefit both big and small systems.
perhaps "schedulatory anticipator"
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I host a bunch of VPSs based on Jeff Dike's UML (User Mode Linux) project.
One (of the many) cool things UML allows is for you to try out new kernels without having to dedicate a real box to it. Even if you're only dedicating the box to it between kernel swap reboots. Especially if you're not sure if the new kernel will corrupt your precious partitions.
The UML 'host' server can continue to run whatever stable 2.4 kernel you need (in my case 2.4.21).
You SSH from your 'host' server into your hosted UML kernel. Play around, test reliability, fiddle with new features, regression test your apps.
So anyway, I'm off to grab the new kernel and have a play. Maybe even see if there are any crazies out there who want hosting with the 2.5/2.6-pre kernel.
- Peter
RimuHosting - Linux VPS Hosting
o Faster CD recording that doesn't need ide-scsi;
It's about goddamn motherfucking time. God the IDE CD running SCSI emulation is the biggest piece of shit I've seen on Linux. I have a box that has run rh 7.2 and now runs rh 9 and the only thing that locks this box up is anything out of the ordinary having to do with the CD-r (such as the pathetic piece of SHIT that GNOME calls CD player software - who made this crap the default desktop in RH? [And yes, I know I can run KDE (in fact I use the CD player kscd from that environment) but having heard how RH mucked around with KDE to 'unify' it with gnome, I'm leery of that]). Last night, that junk locked my machine so solid I couldn't login over the network, the Xserver froze (except for the mouse) and I had to hardware-reset it, fsck all the filesystems on reboot [even though I'm using ext3] and then it spent all fucking night resyncing the raid mirrors.
I love Linux, I've been a fantic about it since 1999, but that ide-scsi was terrible fucking hack.
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
Well, technically---
Windows 98 is Windows 4.1 (4.0 was 95)
Windows ME was Windows 4.9....
Windows 2000 was NT 5.0
XP is Windows NT 5.1
Server 2003 is 6.0
Longhorn is ?????
This means that Microsoft is doing WHAT with version numbering???
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
If the Amd world view of how to achieve 32 bit without emu on a 64 bit platform are to fly then the adoption of AMD by the server world is essential for Linux in the future. Blindly following the Intel/MS lead may lead to kaos. The same as blindly imitating Microsofts functions by reverse engineering, is for programmers.
The office desktop lock of MS is not the route that Linux should take, the applied advanced scientific computing and clustering is the best route. When a great scientific workstation can be had for the price of a Linux install on a 64 bit AMD system the business computing world will finally start to wake up and take notice.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
NEW XCONFIG!!
x t
Check out: http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/post-halloween-2.5.t
Now, when someone does make xconfig it uses the qt libraries. There is also a make gconfig for all you gnome people. While I like the advancement, it's annoying that even at the deepest level, the kenel, people are forced to repeat functuality for different libraries. While I love the choice, it is just annoying that we so much redundency for these libraries. It seems that programmers are programming more for the libraries than they are for the users. Unfortunitly, I can't think of a way to solve this.
However, it does suck for anyone who uses another window manager and doesn't have/want qt or gnome. I guess they have to live with ncurses.
Only dead fish swim with the stream...
Um, rip open your favourite cd burning package. Poke around it till you find the ASPI dll's. Nero includes it's own ASPI managers - others might use Windows own ones, so you might have to break a debugger or similar (hurtin' for ldd there) over them to spot it.
c f.carleton.ca/~aa571/aspi.htm
ASPI is a SCSI interface standard. It stands for SCSI Programing Interface - it's designed so that ASPI complient hardware can all use a single driver, for a specific type of device. If it's using the ASPI code, then it's working a SCSI device - at least in emulation.
A couple of links, to back up that cd burners use ASPI in windows:
http://aspi.radified.com/
http://www.n
Though we're bordering on offtopic here, because this discussion isn't as closely related to the kernel as it could be, I'm fairly convinced needs no focus as you imply.
First of all, the Linux kernel is and will be the most important readily available high performance computing platform. I cannot imagine a design decision with more than temporary character that will slow down the kernel. Through constant improvement it will lead on all 64bit platforms, Dec Alpha, PowerPC, IA-64 and x86-64. We all know, in the long run, open source isn't beatable in improvement. The kernel is already far on the right side of that curve.
Now, should Linux developers at large focus on scientific computing, or the desktop, on both? Actually this is a "no-question". The development force of open source will always distribute itself along its own best interests, not because of what anybody told them. Till now the technical gurus of programming turned the core of the GNU/Linux OS in what it is, but the evergrowing developer community is attracting more and more apps developers (they are simply more readily available). So while the kernel project is readily scaling to bigger and bigger feats, the app world will still aim for the desktop, the poweruser's desktop first. Simply because there are many people that want to provide apps and simply will do. This will not impair kernel development in any way, and anyhow those people have no different needs from the kernel as the scientists have: stable, efficient, robust.
Since the POSIX and other standards strongly decoupled OS internals from the apps developers (what's going on behind the scenes is no business of the apps developer) we have the power to do it both, in parallel, with no friction.
I use RH, but I stop using it at the ide-SCSI level. I use a locally compiled MPlayer CDRtools at the latest release level and XCDroast. Its a bit more fiddly to configure, but it works well on my older machines. I also have it on a true SCSI machine and again it works ok.
See my journal, I write things there
2.5 is a development kernel. It would be STUPID to run production systems on it... Many production systems still run on 2.2 kernels and have been up for years.
Linus is 'giving up' on 2.5 because he wants to make that branch of the source tree stable. Not because it's a flaming lump of shit.
Then again, I've probably just been trolled. But FYI for those people who believe him.
The only compatiblity package needed is the new modutils, and they are already in unstable.
apt-get install module-init-tools
Download new kernel, configure, compile, install and reboot, and try do it all with kernel-package....
Worked perfectly for me (TM), but you may have to do some tweeking if you want some other stuff (like nvidia-drivers).
As for scaling past 4 CPU's, that was much more true before 2.4. While it's still not going to scale linearly to an infinite number of processers, improvements along the way in the 2.4 series and the o(1) scheduler have helped out quite a bit.
I do believe that much of the non-scaling of Linux past 4 CPU's is, to some extent, actually the fault of the hardware, as the great majority of multiprocesser hardware has bottlenecks that impeded linear scaling.
As a simple example, take a look at the dual P4 Xeons on the 533 MHz bus. Sounds spiffy, right? Well, you're splitting the 533 FSB and memory busses between both processers, giving each one an effective *266 MHz* when under load. Seeing as how even the slowest single-proc P4 has a 400 MHz FSB, you can see off of the bat that you're hitting bottlenecks!
Look at the AthlonMP series: Each processer has it's own independent bus! However, the only available motherboards have a single-channel, 266 MHz memory architecture. That gives each processer only 133 MHz effective memory bus under load. The simple addition of a dual-channel memory controller (like the one on the NForce boards) would give the AthlonMP's a real shot in the arm.
Now, it may seem like I'm just talking about low-end multiprocesser machines, but here's another example: Even on some of the higher-end machines, there are restrictive bottlenecks. By naming names, I'll only start a flame-war with the zeolots, but suffice it to say that there are $35,000 "high-end" servers that have *less* total memory bandwidth than that $3,000 dual P4 Xeon. That is pretty pathetic!
It's pretty easy to see why someone who didn't realize that could plop $35,000 on a 4-way, big-name machine that had less memory bandwidth than a $3,000 dual P4 machine, see that under load both of them performed similarly, and say "Well, Linux must not scale well."
To make matters worse, the kind of applications that are run on multi-CPU machines tend to be things like RDBMS', which do not lend themselves well to clustering. Here's the catch: Those types of applications tend to be the most memory-demanding. So, take a single P4 with a 533 MHz bus, and install your RDBMS on it. Take a dual P4 Xeon with a 533 MHz bus, and try the RDBMS. You're certainly not going to scale linearly, but that's because you still haven't improved the memory bandwidth.
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.