Slashdot Mirror
Torvalds: Test The kernel, 2.6 May Be Out In 2003
Jan Stafford writes "In this interview, Linus Torvalds talks up the test version of the 2.6 Linux kernel released last weekend. He also hints at when a stable, production 2.6.0 might be released." Specifically, Linux encourages big shops to test out the improved high-end capabilities.
is that I can release Linux 2.6.0 final right now and let anyone I want download it.
Maybe Redhat will use my copy of it instead of Linus'.
I simply must meet this Linux guy, no Linux company, no, no... ahhh damn.
If y'all want to see 2.6.0 by early December, get out and try it! I've been using 2.6 test kernels for a while, and haven't encountered any troubles.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Linus mentions that he hopes to have 2.6 out by "Early December". Who wants to take bets we aren't talking about December 2003? :-)
Why, a simple "yes > /dev/mem" command crashes it, hello, windows called they want their crashes back!
I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
Will it support Longhorn? Longhorn is the future of computing, man.
Will it have support for WinFS? Will my grandma be able to e-mail her pictures with it? Will it play WMA and WMV? Didn't think so.
Since installing 2.6.0-test9 under RH9, and after pulling the updated module-init tools, I had the following problems:
RPM died - had to get the bleeding edge version from Rawhide and install it.
Vi would coredump on exit - had to get the latest glibc* from Rawhide.
Wine died - still working on that one.
I had to fight to get the new module tools to load the correct AGPGART module to support the radeon DRI driver.
I'm a little worried that a kernel change is breaking fairly generic userspace apps like RPM and vi (Wine I can understand to some extent....)
www.eFax.com are spammers
Still haven't figured out how to convert from LVM 1 -> 2. Have a nice new kernel that I haven't been able to boot yet.
The real test of 2.6.0 will be seeing if fantastic Andrew Morton can field the breadth and depth of kernel issues as well as the amazing Alan Cox.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
will it have fbcon support?!
Dissertation on the uselessness of Linux zealots
A spectre is haunting the world -- the spectre of the Linux zealot.
What the Linux zealot is will appear evident to whoever has experienced or came in contact with the discussions which daily rage the Web disguised as news, e-mails, reference material, etc. The Linux zealot, is nothing but an animal wandering unceasingly in virtual and true reality (which moreover he treats in the same way) claiming to be an authority on the Linux operating system, an out-and-out guarantor for everyone's freedom, opposed to any safeguard of intellectual works (for a Linux zealot, the expression "copyright" is tantamount to sin against the Holy Spirit: there is no kind of expiation); in fact, he champions software freedom as a fundamental point for world evolution.
But first and foremost, the Linux zealot is a deeply dangerous being as he claims to be the guardian of truth, and looks with suspicion (when it goes off well) or scorn (for the rest of cases, i.e. most of them) those people who simply think differently from him.
But what's Linux? A Linux zealot will never give an authentic answer to this kind of question. He won't, not because he doesn't want to (even if this is the case), but because this question has been answered already, somewhere else by someone else. Linux is nothing but an operating system. The Linux zealot will claim that it is a different operating system from all other ones. But this is not the case. Because an OS is an OS, its main function is to manage the resource of a machine we will call "computer" from now on, for comfort of description. By the term "computer" we mean what is commonly meant by this expression, i. e. the system of hardware resources which are fixed to a certain purpose, be it home use, business use, or server management. Linux is an operating system. Like Windows, MS-DOS, OS/2, etc. There is no difference, in this sense, between Linux and other operating systems. Linux manages a computer, no more, no less. So do MS-DOS, Windows and OS/2. What the Linux zealot self-importantly and arrogantly highlights, is the fact that Linux is a free operating system, i.e., it is made available free of charge to the end user. This of course isn't true at all, but the Linux zealot believes it. Linux is freely distributable, not free of charge. This means that the kernel and everything included in the operating system's minimal requirements can be freely distributed, not that they must be distributed free of charge. This is the first great misapprehension of the Linux zealots, who find their claim challenged by facts: if the essential parts which make the operating system, and some additional software, are freely distributable, they should explain the reason of the costs -- not prohibitive but certainly notable -- of the most popular Linux distributions, Red Hat and SuSE foremost. And most of all, they should explain the fact that companies like Red Hat are regularly listed on the stock exchange, and Mr. Linux Torvald enjoys a rather high standard of living. These benefactors of mankind, these software alternatives, these computer non-conformists (so much non-conformist as to be terribly conformist in their non-conformism) naturally justify the distributing companies' profits with excuses like "but there's a printed manual", "but the bundled software is qualitatively and numerically superior compared to the most popular distribution". "but it is easier to install" and other unspeakable nonsense. "On the other hand" they say "if someone wants Linux, they can just as easily download it from the Internet". Sure. Download it from the Internet. But how long must you stay connected, if you regularly pay an Internet bill, to complete the download of an updated version of a decent distribution of an operating system? So what? Is Linux free? No. Linux is not free, same as nothing downloaded from the Internet is free, unless you have access to an University server or can in whatever way scrounge a connection. If you ask a Linux zealot
Someone please get htpraid/promise RAID working. I can't use 2.6 until then...
Isn't that an oxymoron?
All the big shops out there are happy with Windows networks and IBM mainframes........
"Anyway, I'm waffling. This is a decision that the IT center needs to make on its own." -- Linus.
Point 1: When would any corporate software PR person ever admit "I'm waffling."
Point 2: When would any corporate software PR person ever encourage an IT center to make a decision on its own. They would tell you that you "must" upgrade a pay because newer is better.
My fastest machine is a Pentium 75 with 24MB of memory. Until Linus buys me a new one, I'll be sticking with the 2.2 Kernels
Thanks a bunch richie rich.
This is /. You should know that it's Linus, not Linux!
fucktard is a tenderhearted description
Anyone have any testing or feelings of how the 2.6 vs the 2.4-CK patches patches from Con Kolivas match up?
The 2.4.x-CK patch bundle sure has made a difference, havnt used 2.6.x-TEST fulltime on a desktop yet.
Now, I'm a fan of open source and use Linux almost exclusively at work. But, I couldn't help but think about the different cultures we find in the different open source projects. It seems that we, as users of the projects, are taken for granted. Here, an open source project, is reaching out and trying to gain more tested systems by enlisting beta testers to go through the config; make; install process and run a few applications to see if it works.
/., but I hope this comment is useful and that someone can extract a morsel of truth out of it.
But, see, this is where the fun ends. When there is a problem, what next? Well, it really depends, of course, on the user's tone. But, more often than not it depends on a given projects team and whether they're willing to take the criticism/bug report as something that will help improve their system even better.
In a majority of the open source projects you get one of the following as a response to your bug reports:
1. Developers begin to whine about how they lack funding.
2. Developers whine about how they're doing this in their free time.
3. The bug goes completely ignored for one or two years, then it's "magically" fixed in HEAD, which won't be available for packaging for another 3 to 4 months.
4. Someone says, "It works in HEAD." Then the next minor release, it's still broken.
Usually the above responses come with reports that talk about more aesthetic issues, but, sometimes even serious problems go neglected at times.
Anyway, the point is: project developers are wanting, are asking, for more users. With that request, developers need to realize what they're getting into. By complaining about lack of funding and using up their free time does not get past to about 1mm deep into the skins of the project's users.
If developers are spending their "free" time working on these projects, then, what, I ask, kind of time are the users using? I mean, there is some mentality among some projects that users are bloodsucking the life out of developers. Had it occurred to anyone that developers and users live out more of a symbiotic relationship improving the project on both sides?
I know this is a rant; I just needed to get it out the door. When Linus and other open source projects make a call for Beta testers, then they need to realize that the call might bring in users who aren't particularly adept at programming and/or have knowledge of the internals of the system. How many of us are scared silly to post even the simplest of emails onto LKML? Trust me, that mailing list isn't for the weak and prideful.
My call to developers is before you write that next email about how you're spending "free" time, think about and take for granted the fact these users are spending *time* to communicate with you! I know I'm preaching to the choir posting this to
Andrew Morton, future maintainer of 2.6, will be speaking at SCALE in a few weeks. If you want a free exhibits pass using the code "free" will work on their registration page.
6. Prof... no, maybe not.
It's so damn frustrating: on the one hand the 2.6.0 kernels run really great, I finally have a decent Gentoo installation and now...
:'(
On the other hand, my system freezes occasionaly during disc activity and/or when using the mouse or keyboard. Actually, I'm not really sure why or in what situations the system freezes. It seems to occur randomly, whenever there is some form of activity.
I have tried recompiling the kernels, leaving out certain features such as ACPI, APM, etc, but to no avail.
The 2.4 kernel provided on the Gentoo boot CD doesn't have this problem and neither did 2.6.0-test7 on RH9/RawHide/"quasi-"Fedora.
But on Gentoo, both 2.6.0-test8-mm1 (Andrew) and 2.6.0-test9 (Linus) really freeze (lock up) my system every once and a while (perhaps a few times a day). I can't put a finger on it, because it can happen both in X11 as in text mode CLI, bot with and without the (patched) NVIDIA driver loaded, and either when working interactively or when there is a lot of disc activity.
Finding the culprit to this stability problem is a needle in a haystack. How on earth can you debug lock-ups? If the kernel panicked or oopsed instead, then I would at least have some leads, even though I'm not a kernel hacker.
Am I the only one with this problem? I have an nforce2-based chipset, but why should that be the cause of the problem if the same chipset ran flawlessly on the later 2.4 kernels and 2.6.0-test7 on RH9?
Apart from the occasional lock-ups, the kernel runs beautifully, that's what makes it so frustrating! Stability was one of the reasons why I switched to Linux!
"Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"