Linux 2.6.0 Expected In Mid-December

Ridgelift writes "CRN is reporting the release of Linux 2.6.0 in mid-December. 'Torvalds, Linux's lead developer and now an OSDL Fellow, and Linux kernel maintainer Andrew Morton this week released the test10 version of Linux 2.6 after a three-year development effort. A final test11 version is expected before they sign off on the production version next month.' Get ready for 'major scalability improvements, faster performance, enhanced support for embedded systems and, to a lesser extent,' a kernel that 'supplies desktop systems with better USB and FireWire support.'"

Comments

Xmas

[czaby]

Excellent Xmas present, thanks!

Re:Xmas

[Libor Vanek]

Don't even think about getting it this year ;-) Have you ever seen such a large project on schedule? .)

Re:Xmas

[contrasutra]

It was suppose to be released October 31, so you are right. This sounds about right. 2-3 months behind schedule.

I love 2.6. Ive been using it since -test4 and Ive only had a couple of issues with some of the Morton Patches. Other than that, it IS everything people say it is (on my desktop machine). Fast, stable, and performs amazing under heavy load.

Its the first time I could compile GIMP and surf the web without feeling any slowdown when scrolling.

Re:Xmas

[diersing]

Although I've not quit my day job to follow the SCO v. IBM thing, am I correct in that SCO has not released the "what & where" as far as the lines of UNIX code in the linux kernel? If not, then won't the 2.6 kernel fall under the settlement agreements (either for or against)? Not that it would prevent me from downloading my favorite distro when released with 2.6, just curious.

USB

[aweraw]

mmmm, better usb... *droolz*

Re:USB

[Anonymous Coward]

All I want for Christmas is a 2.6 kernel.

This isn't unexpected

[The One KEA]

I've been running -testX kernels for a while now and the claims made about all the improvements are true -- 2.6 is a far better kernel than 2.4, IMO.

The prediction that akpm made about mid-December sounds about right as well -- 2.6.0-test10 could be 2.6.0 right now and I doub there'd be any showstoppers to block it.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[AKnightCowboy]

I've been running -testX kernels for a while now and the claims made about all the improvements are true -- 2.6 is a far better kernel than 2.4, IMO.

What's taking so long anyway? I thought Linus's new grand master plan was quicker releases of major versions. 3 years seems like an eternity in the electronic world. In that time Windows has gone from 2000 to XP to 2003 for crying out loud! They're jumping all over the fscking version map and all we have to show for it is a lousy .2 subversion jump? 3 years and .2 versions?? Why not announce it as Linux XP or Linux 2004 or something more exciting?

Re:This isn't unexpected

[Anonymous Coward]

What's taking so long anyway? [...] Why not announce it as Linux XP or Linux 2004 or something more exciting?

The kernel is open source. You can replace all occurencies of 2.6.0 or 2.4.22 with XP or 2004 or whatever you fancy.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[arodland]

But really, think about it.

In the past 9-10 years, windows has gone from 3.x to 95 and NT, to 2000, to 2003. In the same time, Linux has gone from 1.0 to (just about) 2.6

The biggest shift in windows-world was from 3.x to 9x / NT in 1995. Linux went from 1.2.x to 2.0 in 1996. Since then, we've had 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6, all of which have had improvements that would have qualified for major releases in windows.

Of course, Linux is a kernel, and windows is quite a bit heavier, so it's a case of tangerines and oranges.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[nagora]

In that time Windows has gone from 2000 to XP to 2003 for crying out loud!

Oh, yeah, that was a leap alright! New splash screen and a different colour scheme. Whoop-de-do.

TWW

Re:This isn't unexpected

[troon]

That's not a fair comparison. The kernel underlying the Windows OSes you quote has not changed anything as like as much as the user interface.

If you compare Linux+KDE or Linux+Gnome, you'd see similar if not greater change. Anyway, who cares? WinXP and Win2k3 have hardly been met with unanimous praise, have they?

Re:This isn't unexpected

[Clay Pigeon -TPF-VS-]

That's why you spelled than as "then."

Re:This isn't unexpected

[EriDay]

In the last 12 years M$ has really only sold 3 kernels:

• Win3.0, Win31, Win95, Win98, WinME all built on the DOS kernel.
• Various versions of the WinNT kernel
• Various versions of the XP kernel

There has been some tweaking of the kernel for market positioning and bug fixes, but no other major architectual overhauls. Everything else has been modifications to the window manger which is the equivilent to a new KDE or Gnome version. Let's not forget that M$ is impoverished comared to Linux.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[oregonbound]

I don't fault the maintainers for being conservative in the release of kernel upgrades, but I think there is a valid point here. People in general are sheep and as such, they are swayed by "bright" and "flashy." In order to help them see Linux as a viable OS, it might very well help to give the kernels more market oriented names.

I'm perfectly happy with 2.4, 2.6, or whatever, but I know that my brother, my neighbor, and my IT director would be more likely to give a second glance to Linux 2004 or some such thing.

Paul

Re:This isn't unexpected

[ultranova]

That's why we have distributions, which can up the minor and major numbers whenever they like, or call themselves whatever flashy names the marketing people come up with. For example, there's Red Hat Linux (was, at leat), Red Hat Enterprise Linux, Advanced Server (?) and so worth. A newbie is unlikely to know or care about the kernel version anyway...

On the other hand, calling things by version number is much clearer for anyone who wants to upgrade/modify their system. If you had Linux ME and Linux XP, which one would be better ? On the other hand, if you have Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.6, the choice is pretty obvious.

BTW. I just have to ask. What kind of IT director decides based on flashy names, and not comparison by technical merit ?

Re:This isn't unexpected

[oregonbound]

Excellent points. I think you're right--it does make more sense to give the distros flashy names and leave the kernel as a number.

What kind of IT director? Certainly not my current one (on the off change he reads Slashdot). Must be that one that works with that friend of my uncle.

Paul

Re:This isn't unexpected

[lauwersw]

I don't think it matters: people buy distro's, not kernels. Distro's do change major numbers frequently, some of them are at 9.x already.

That means they passed the 3.x long ago, so soon we will see NT and XP versions coming ;-)

Re:This isn't unexpected

[hughk]

Actually Win9x to NT was a major leap as that was when the 16-bit stuff was ditched. There was no corresponding revolution in Linux, just a *lot* of incremental changes. Although some changes were big, their scopes were a lot smaller and as you say, Linux is just a kernel.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[Anonymous Coward]

Its /not/ three years. Linux kernel 2.4.0 shipped on January 4th 2001, however the development tree, 2.5, didn't fork until November 23rd 2001 (coinciding with the release of 2.4.15, at which point Linus handed out maintainership to Marcelo Tosatti). So, in reality, the development cycle of 2.5-2.6 took around two years. The 2.4 tree took a long time to stabilize (from January to November), which led Linus to delay the official opening of 2.5. This time around Linus will hand off 2.6 right at point zero release to Andrew Morton and fork off 2.7. This will hopefully lead to a faster development cycle.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[Ianoo]

The NT and XP kernel are the same. XP's is just an incremental improvement over the NT4 Kernel (it's almost the exact same Kernel in Win2000 aka NT5). Microsoft have just moved things in and out of the Kernel since NT3 to improve performance (such as the full DirectX support added to W2K rather than the awful DirectX emulation in NT4).

Also, while it's true that the 9x series are built on top of DOS, the same as 3.11, there were a significant number of changes to support 32-bit and things like pre-emptive rather than cooperative multitasking. Not quite as many changes as Microsoft would have us believe (it certainly wasn't the 100% new 16-bit-free operating system everyone expected based on what they were saying), but certainly a lot of changes under the hood.

Lastly, 3.x never had a Kernel, it was effectively a big graphical library and program launcher, and not much more.

That given, I'd revise your list to:

• DOS Kernel (if you can call it a Kernel!)
• 9x Kernel (which built on DOS/3x)
• NT Kernel (featuring in 2K and XP with tweaks)

I agree entirely that Linux has to be taken in a larger context. Considering that in the same time it's taken to go from 2K to XP we've seen Gnome go from v1 to v2 and KDE go from v2 to v3, which were much more significant changes, I'd say that Linux on the desktop is advancing more rapidly.

Besides, there's no reason to rewrite a Kernel from scratch if you get it right the first time. There don't seem to be that many fundamental problems with the Linux Kernel, so the continued process of tweaking and gradual improvement seems set to continue. Microsoft, on the other hand, had to write a new Kernel because 9x was such a horrendous mess and lacked quite a lot of modern features and elegance.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[paganizer]

you forgot about incrementally less stability and security with each change.
Although I haven't REALLY got deeply in 2003 yet, what I have seen doesn't really impress the hell out of me; It might barely be better than XP.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[sharkey]

Oh, yeah, that was a leap alright! New splash screen and a different colour scheme. Whoop-de-do.

Come on, give a little bit of credit. Starting with XP, you can open .ZIP files without findng, downloading and installing a archiving software application. What other operating system can read compressed file archives right after install?

Re:This isn't unexpected

[Anonymous Coward]

> Microsoft, on the other hand, had to write a new Kernel because 9x was such a horrendous mess and lacked quite a lot of modern features and elegance

That's actually backwards -- they wrote the "modern", "clean" NT kernel first. They had to write the 9x kernel for driver compatibility and low memory machines. It was a temporary solution that hung around 3-4 years longer than it needed to.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[Geek of Tech]

BTW. I just have to ask. What kind of IT director decides based on flashy names, and not comparison by technical merit ?

Well The Boss of course. Whatever kind of manager is there?

Re:This isn't unexpected

[eatdave13]

None! Windows roolz, Linux droolz! Hahahahahaha!

Seriously though, the "compressed folder" came with WinME, and it sucks just as bad now as it did then. They could have at least stuck a UI on the thing.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[spongman]

You're correct, right up until you imply that NT was written to replace 9x. NT shipped before win95, and it existed within MS well before win95 was even conceived. win95 was writen because they wanted to ship win32 to customers and NT didn't run as well as OS/2 or Win3.1 on consumer-level machines.

There was an effort to write a completely new win32-based replacement for win31, cougar was the codename for the 32-bit DOS kernel, and panther was the win32 core, but panther was canned and cougar was merged into chicago (win95).

Re:This isn't unexpected

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance is a bliss.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[WNight]

The first time I saw this in XP I thought it would be sweet. But it ended up crashing the explorer and then it restarted application bar and lost all my system tray icons.

XP has been fairly stable, but that wasn't very impressive.

I'd rather they just shipped a freeware ZIP application then build something buggy into the OS.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[mog]

OSX

Re:This isn't unexpected

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for you, we will call the version you get "Linux Bazillion". The release after that (again just for you): "Linux double bazillion with a cherry on top". The release after that (again, you only): "Super Duper Linux triple bazillion with a cherry on top." Happy? As for "XP" doesn't it sound like "Expired"? I prefer the good stuff going into the kernel and a bland sounding name rather than bland improvements and a gold-version super hyper ultra mega advanced pro killer super-duper triple-whammy sounding name.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, if you can't find or remember that you need to keep Winzip handy, you don't need to be using a computer. Simple as that.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[mixmasta]

Nope. 2003 is the best windows ever. Take that as you want. =).

90% of the security flaws effect all versions of NT and up, and many are from IE, but I use mozilla.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[Anonymous Coward]

it might very well help to give the kernels more market oriented names

Eh? What could be more Brand-Building than a name like Stoned Beaver?

Re:This isn't unexpected

[cpeterso]

Cougar and Panther? So Apple is still playing catch up to Microsoft? ;-)

Re:This isn't unexpected

[phoenix_rizzen]

Sure, it's picking nits, but still ...

Windows went:
1.x --> 2.x --> 3.x --> 95 --> 98 --> ME --> XP Home --> Longhorn

Windows NT (completely separate beast) went:
NT 3.x --> NT 4.x --> 2000 --> XP Pro --> Longhorn

The only major shift were from 3.x to 95 (GUI and mostly 32-bit), and from ME to XP (GUI and fully 32-bit).

Re:This isn't unexpected

[hughk]

Picking even smaller nits, XP Home and XP Pro are very simmilar and both based on the 2000 kernel. The 2000 kernel was only really a evolutionary change from the NT. The big jump was going away from the 95/98/ME stuff. To be fair, Windows 2 (almost unusable) to Windows 3 (386 support) was also a pretty big one.

Perhaps my perception of a more continual process with Linux is because the source changes and discussion groups are public.

Re:This isn't unexpected

[hakr89]

Actually the integrated zip feature was first integrated with Windows ME. However, neither of the integrated unzippers (ME or XP) can handle .tar which is why they SUCK!!!

Re:This isn't unexpected

[E-Rock]

Must seperate marketing from developing...

NT has gone from:
3.x to 4.x to 5.x

2000 is 5.0, XP is 5.1 and 2003 is 5.2

Re:This isn't unexpected

[phoenix_rizzen]

Well, if you're going to get right down to it, then Windows went from 3.x to 4.0, to 4.1, to 4.2, to 4.5, since 95-ME are all really just point releases. :)

Re:This isn't unexpected

[E-Rock]

I'll go along with 95 & 98 (don't forget 98SE and 95 OEM B & C) being point releases. ME was a whole new kind of mistake.

What the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Morton acknowledged that the XFS and JFS file systems, which were originally developed under a Unix license and then ported over to Linux, could be a sticky issue that lawyers can exploit. "SGI did develop it. It could be [SCO] has a legitimate case there, not technically, but on the letter of the law," Morton said.

Re:What the fuck?

[Zapdos]

They were actually developed on white paper. The first implementation may have been on a UNIX. Both HP and SGI are aware of license agreements and code ownership. All of their programs are fully developed on white paper, patents applied for, granted or pending, then creation of the FIRST implementation. In doing business this way, HP and SGI own the technologies, SCO has no leg to stand on.

Re:What the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

interesting enough, ibm didn't port jfs from AIX but from os2. perhaps IBM did this with the insight of their unix license... i'd miss those filesystems, even though I don't use them, as they have some important performance charectoristics that may become important, but linux has enough filesystems, more production class general purpose filesystems then any os in history...

Re:What the fuck?

[ShadowRage]

no, but they'll make a leg out of paper mache(sp?) (litigation papers) and chicken wire and exclaim that it really is a leg. ;)

Re:What the fuck?

[sharkey]

They were actually developed on white paper.

Let this be a lesson to us all. Be sure to develop your filesystems on black paper.

Now you can have those 64 CPUs

[cspenn]

Now you can have those 64 CPU machines that you've always wanted. Hmm, I wonder if the new kernel will come with any legal exemptions like "Not to be used by any employee or lawyer of SCO"?

That'd be nice.

Re:Now you can have those 64 CPUs

[RPoet]

And also, it would violate the GPL and GNUs criteria for software freedom.

Re:Now you can have those 64 CPUs

[Anonymous Coward]

It already does. The GPL.

They broke the terms of the GPL, therefore they are no longer licensed.

Re:Now you can have those 64 CPUs

[scharkalvin]

Let's submit a patch that will reformat and zero out the root file system whenever it detects a login from a D. McBride.

Re:Now you can have those 64 CPUs

[Seahawk]

Well - just include in the license that it may not be distributed in the US... ;o)

Re:Now you can have those 64 CPUs

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO exists in europe also

Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[quigonn]

We're running 2.6.0-test9 on several production machines at work, and we had absolutely no problem, so far, but a huge improvement on performance instead. The only thing one has to care about is that 2.6.0 requires module-init-tools instead of modutils. It's especially important to read the upgrade guide, so that one can easily switch back to 2.4.x even when using modules (not that I would miss 2.4.x, but you never know... not all people will have such flawless upgrade processes as I did).

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[inode_buddha]

The only real problem I've had is getting iptables started correctly on RH9 with updates, patches, and some fedora stuff. Yes, I know about module-init-tools. If it wasn't for that, I'd be using it daily right now. Ideas? How can I get the iptables modules to load cleanly?

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Billly Gates]

Mod this sucker up!

It will save you countless headaches if you read the files about module-init. I have been using the linux kernels since 2.0x but never had an upgrade break a system. It totally ruined my redhat 9 box doing that.

I upgraded to module-init and after that 2.4 wouldn't boot. grr.

Is there a way to have both installed so I could dual boot 2.4 and 2.6?

I switched back to my more upgrade friendly FreeBSD until 2.6 was more stabilized and more distro's supported it. My guess is Gentoo would be the first.

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Bas_Wijnen]

As far as I know Linux 2.4 also needed module-init-tools.

Anyway, I have a USB device here which had problems with a bug in the uhci driver of 2.4, and there was a patch for it for 2.6.0-test2. I used that, and it worked fine. Later, I moved the device to a different computer, so I compiled a new kernel. By that time, -test9 had come out (which included the patch btw), so I used that.

I don't know why, but the other computer was completely unstable with that, crashing several times an hour. This was of course unacceptable, so I compiled a -test2 kernel for it and it hasn't crashed since.

I didn't file a bug report, because I couldn't figure out what was causing the crashes. I sure hope my machine will run allright on 2.6.0, because I want to let other people use that usb device as well, and I wasn't planning to tell them they need to compile their own kernel.

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[dossen]

I don't know about Gentoo, but as far as installing module-init-tools/modutils, kernel and related stuff Source Mage GNU/Linux has been there for quite some time.

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Walterk]

Why are you running a test kernel on several PRODUCTION machines?

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who blanched when he said this.

Shit, running anything newer than 2.4.14 on a production machine is probably too new.

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[shani]

It depends on the production, doesn't it? I mean, if you have a machine that collates addresses and prints mailing labels, then you can run with the test kernel and if it gives you better performance and works, who cares if it's "only for testing"? What's the problem?

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm... I installed the new tools on debian and can still boot 2.4 kernels...

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Dave2 Wickham]

make moveold before make install - it moves the current lsmod, modprobe etc to lsmod.old, modprobe.old etc.

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Anonymous Coward]

(that's when installing the module init tools, BTW)

-Dave

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dual boot: Sure, partition your HDD, and install both (or more) of the distro's you want. I have 15 partitions on this 20 GB HDD, with all sorts of stuff, from Win98/Arachne 1.70, to SuSE, Debian, and a couple of Redhat's, and a Mandrake to top it all off. Some are installed in /boot and "/" partitions, so you use two partitions for those distro's. hook up your source HDD's, and dd over to the new partitions, then expand with ext2resize on those with ext2 partitions. That can save a lot of installation work, especially on one you have spent a lot of time on, getting it right.

Edit your /etc/fstab to get an installation to boot, if you have moved it from another location.

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[KeyserDK]

I have both installed using mandrake cooker.. doesn't break my default 2.4 kernel

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[BoysDontCry]

Nope. Linux 2.4 needed modutils. 2.6 needs module-init-tools.

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Anonymous Coward]

You too...?

The hard way:

- get an old insmod and copy it to /sbin/insmod.old

- create symlinks for the other tools (lsmod, rmmod, modprobe, ksyms, kallsyms), e.g. /sbin/lsmod.old that point to /sbin/insmod.old

The easy way: RTFM ;)

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[brsmith4]

If you want, here is an RPM that contains updated modutils. The package is called modutils so that it cooperates with the pre-defined dependencies. It also allows you to boot 2.6 and 2.4 kernels. It works well for me on redhat 9

modutils-2.4.21-22.i386.rpm

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Dave2 Wickham]

Too late, I already posted the RTFM way :P.

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slackware supports this since 9.1 which is out since september.

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[wongmld]

Aha, I don't think so, Slackware 9.1 is already 2.6 ready, I upgraded to 2.6.0-test9 without any pain at all.

Having say that, I'm running Debian on my Evo1015 which 2.6.0 kernels constantly hang up the whole machine, and only accepts a hard reset. I can only pray that test10 patches the problem!

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Anonymous Coward]

The improved label print performance really kicks ass. The preemptible kernel even makes it possible to interrupt a disk transfer for better label print responsiveness.

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Mullen]

Depends. I worked at a place that used 6 Proc with 4 Gigs of memory systems that had 20 to 30 heavy users at any one time. We were using the 2.4.9 Redhat kernel and the machines would crash after 3 or 4 days. Considering we had 300 or 400 machines, you can take a guess what oncall was like. Well, I took a couple of the mid-level problem ones and replace the kernels with 2.4.18 release canidates (I played with the patches) and they did not crash for several weeks afterwards. Some servers never went down unless we rebooted them. Sometimes using beta stuff will save your ass, but as a general rule of thumb, your right, it can be bad.

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[WNight]

Depends what they're doing, and what the expected failure modes are. If you've already got a cluster of webservers, it might make perfect sense to throw a 2.6 machine into the pool. If it fails it'll only be one hit in every so many, and it's easy to pull out once this happens. Perhaps you could do something like run your ad server on a new machine. Even if it fails, customers don't think the site is down.

And from this, and from running tests on it, you know if 2.6 is going to offer you anything.

There are many applications where a production machine could go down and not cause more than a few seconds of service outage. No lost data, no long downtimes, etc. As long as you understand that this is a test and prepare an immediate failover machine.

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[spaceyhackerlady]

I upgraded my laptop to 2.6.0-test4 back in September, after reading this article.

The previous kernel (2.4.20, Slackware 9) worked, but had a couple of rough edges. The most serious (particularly on a laptop) was Compaq's weird ACPI implementation that 2.4.20 couldn't figure out. After I booted 2.6.0-test4, I was able to read off all the information I needed. Much easier to use in the field!

In the process of upgrading I did indeed break the 2.4 modutils. But since 2.6 works so well, I really don't care. Some day I'll upgrade X so it uses the ATI Radeon chipset directly, rather than messing around with VESA.

Impressed hell out of my co-workers, too.

...laura, looking forward to 2.6.0

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[alexborges]

Um...

apt-get install kernel-source-2.4.6-test9 or 10 whatever....

Then apt-get install module-init-tools um....thats it. Edit lilo to dual boot and presto.

Oh, you said redhat....bummer

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, if you read the stuff in module-init-tools it tells you exactly how to boot either 2.4 or 2.6 series kernels. I run RedHat9 with (currently 2.6.0-test10-bk2). I can go back to 2.4.20 anytime. There are a few quirks with RH that you have to do to get modules to load (but again, it's all in the documentation for module-init-tools). My CD burner is no longer a fake SCSI device, and I had to build the TV tuner app without alsa (as it's in 2.6 by default). Everything else works like before (but faster).

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's good. Because switching to 2.4 from 2.2 was a fucking biatch. Do I want to switch again, from 2.4 to 2.6 this time? Maybe... yeah.

So what's a nice 2.6 alpha Distro to get?

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[anto]

Run Debian - I didn't realise it was a problem until I just read about it here. Install the new package both 2.4 & 2.6 boots fine. Duck :)

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[some guy I know]

Your link, "http://sourcemage.org/", didn't work.
Use http://www.sourcemage.org/ instead.

I don't know why some sites these days still require "www.".

Re:Linux 2.6: I can only recommend it!

[yermama]

Am I the only one with ipsec headaches? The only machine I don't have on 2.6(yet) is my firewall. I have several net-to-net VPNs ala freeswan. The 2.6 kernel includes a kame-based ipsec stack. Efforts to cram the freeswan stack in fail, although the docs say it's possible. I'm pretty sure I can convert to the kame stack, but it's not a trivial task.
Other than that, 2.6 r0cks!

Keyboard still doesn't work

[chrysalis]

I own a Logitech ergonomic cordless keyboard and 2.6.x still doesn't work with it. The key repeat is very strange and typing anything becomes impossible.

That's very strange. I also have a Logitech cordless confort keyboard that is basically the same but with a different base, and that one perfectly works.

Re:Keyboard still doesn't work

[anti-NAT]

Have you mentioned it on LKML ?

They need to know about your problems so they can have a go at fixing them./p.

Re:Keyboard still doesn't work

[MrHanky]

Have you tried "pci=noacpi" at the boot prompt? I had complete crashes (no kernel panic) when the keyboard was initialized before I tried that. Maybe your problem is related? (This is for a PS/2 type keyboard, BTW.)

I don't think I have any problems with 2.6.0-test9-mm1 at all.

Re:Keyboard still doesn't work

[standsolid]

I have the same keyboard try runnin ghits if you have a repeat rate problem # kbdrate -r250 -d30 i have KDE set to bump up my repeat, so that takes care of that.

Re:Keyboard still doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh. I'm using a cordless freedom pro pack from Sam's club through a KVM switch (I also have a lazy-boy in the computer room which isn't as comfortable as I thought it would be) works sweet. Of course I don't really use the fancy buttons, so that might be a major difference.

Re:Keyboard still doesn't work

[MrTotto]

I have a Logitech Cordless Desktop keyboard, and I had the same problem as you (I think). The repeat delay seemed to be 0, so logging in as "rrooooott" to solve the problem was impossible :-(

I solved the problem by explicitly calling

kbdrate -d 250

in a startup script

Re:Keyboard still doesn't work

[ShadowRage]

ever thought that you might have a busted keyboard?

Re:Keyboard still doesn't work

[Crazy Eight]

I had the same problem on a TiBook. It's there at least up to test7 and IIRC test9. The usb keyboard on my desktop has no problems.

good stuff

[inode_buddha]

I've tried several -test kernels, and the desktop performance boost blows my mind. I could probably stay with -test10 and akpm's patches, but that's not what the kernel team is really looking for (I think). Last I heard, They really want people to hammer on stuff like PnP, scalability, USB, and ACPI.

Any ideas on how much akpm's patches end up becoming "mainstream"? After reading the changelogs (and using the patches), I think it'd be a good idea.

Re:good stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

New Linux 10.0 Optimized! Now, if only they'd send those CDs out like crazy.

Re:good stuff

[crimsun]

All of the critical fixes from -mm are pushed into Linus's current tree. Just take a look at the "Merged" section immediately following "Latest Linus tree" here; repeat with the previous -testX-mmY patch announcements.

Now take a look at this under the "Andrew Morton" heading and notice how many of those patch headings ring a bell. Yessir, he has been kickin' arse and taking names.

Re:good stuff

[inode_buddha]

Thanks for the info, its good to know. It wasn't obvious to me since I've just been grabbing the "vanilla" 2.6.x sources and applying the relevant -mm patches from kernel.org FTP.

Also, another poster has noted that I need to do a "make moveold" when building module-init-tools. (I was editing modules.conf manually *after* the builds, previously.)

AKPM is definitely rockin' and rollin' now. 2.6.x is gonna be the big winner for quite a while, IMHO. Sort of like it was when 2.0 came out. I still believe that desktop and app integration (like Xandros) will make a larger difference for overall linux adoption; 2.6.x is the icing on the cake.

Thanks again for the info, I've got to go do some builds! (Scurries off to build 2.6.10-mm1)

Re:good stuff

[axboe]

Do note that patches that have come from some other person but ends up in Linus tree via the -mm tree get attributed to Andrew.

Andrew does kick ass, but don't fool yourself into thinking he hacked all of that by himself :)

Newsflash - Christmas Postponed..

[Channard]

NEWSFLASH: Chrismas has been postponed as Santa has had an injunction placed on him by Linux copyright claimants SCO.

'We intercepted a number of letters from Linux users to Mr Claus, requesting that he bring them the new 2.6 Linux Kernel for Christmas, and given that at least 50% of them have been good, we believe he was going to supply the requested code' said Daryl McScrooge, head of SCO's 'Grabbit and Runne' division.

'Linux 2.6 was of course entirely written by ourselves and the tooth fairy and to protect our rights we have taken out an injunction preventing Father Christmas from delivering any presents this Christmas. We believe this is a fair and legal action. And anyway, I never did get that bike I asked for.'

Re:Newsflash - Christmas Postponed..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad, isn't it? And then they wonder where the geeks = losers stereotype comes from ..

Re:Newsflash - Christmas Postponed..

[Xpilot]

That reminds be of The Grinch who stole Linux:

It's hilarious

Re:Newsflash - Christmas Postponed..

[j3110]

The greating should actually be:
"Happy Capitalistic Compulsory Consumerism month!" ...and may you have a marry new year of frivolous letigation against your own or potential clients.

Re:Newsflash - Christmas Postponed..

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah, they're all retards. (*wank*wank*wank*)

SCO?

[Anonymous Coward]

A nice Christmas present for SCO: Another kernel to be subpoenaed.

holidays are coming...

[jester42]

What a nice christmas present! Thank you Linus. So now I have something to do over christmas vacation =)

Re:That'd be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

You think so? Let's add Govt employees of "rogue" nations to the list. And suspected terrorists. What the hell, add the French to the list too, why should they be allowed to use Linux. It's our FREEDOM we're talking about here.

IDE support on Dell Latitude D600

[cerberusss]

I'm running this new kernel to get full support on whatever IDE chipset my Dell Latitude D600 laptop uses. Combined with the better performance this kernel really rocks.

Re:IDE support on Dell Latitude D600

[cpeterso]

I have a Dell Latitude C400 laptop. The only problem I had with the linux-2.6.0-testX kernels was that it broke mouse pad support. The workaround is to add the following boot-time kernel parameter: psmouse=noext

Re:IDE support on Dell Latitude D600

[cerberusss]

Have u got the full synaptics X driver working? I.e. so the right side of the pad scrolls your screen? Because I couldn't, even with the synaptics kernel module loaded.

Re:IDE support on Dell Latitude D600

[cpeterso]

no. Someone had recommended I try the Synaptics driver from the XFree86 CVS tree, but that was too bleeding edge for me... said as I boot linux-2.6.0-test kernels :-)

Not to nitpick, but

[Space cowboy]

I thought this was all Linus' doing - in the LWN text, he says that Andrew is off for a couple of weeks so he may release a test11 before Andrew decides to take it on for release management...

Simon

Re:Not to nitpick, but

[inode_buddha]

Andrew just released a -mm1 patch for -test10; I just grabbed it from kernel.org. I bet it's a couple weeks before he has another patch (if any), and then it goes into production. If I can make it load iptables correctly, it's probably what I'll stick with until RH/Fedora has their own version. FWIW, I've been saving all my .config file versions and building it the old way with bzImage, modules, modules_install and install, in that order, with LILO.

Oops, sorry; just parsed your "test11" as "test1". Hope someone can use my post anyway.

2.6 rocks, no doubt.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no doubt that 2.6 is going to be a winner.
Performance is absolutely great.

There's no change in hell I will go back to 2.4 on my desktop.

Marry Christmas ;)

Re:2.6 rocks, no doubt.

[Anonymous Coward]

uhm, sorry ;)
that would be "merry" :

Marry Christmas !

Re:What are they going to call it,

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like that for a xmas present, but alas, no such pleasures for a geek.

Merry Christmas...NOT

[swapsn]

While we may be happy to get our cherished x'mas present, its going to be a very tense and distracting one for kernel developers :-)

Would you prefer better or released quicker ?

[anti-NAT]

I prefer better, even it it takes a bit longer.

"All good things come to those who wait."

They seem to have som problems though...

[errl]

A problem, potentially delaying release? Seems that they don't really know what causes it as of yet...

Re:They seem to have som problems though...

[Ziviyr]

Its a feature, don't use it,
enjoy everything else, merry christmas!

Re:They seem to have som problems though...

[sg_oneill]

Eek! The "intermitent bug".

Sounds like one of those fucking awful bugs that happens... usually... not always... sometimesish more during x, but not always y, but twice as much x,y etc etc.

A hard-to-repeat bug is ALWAYS the worse.

when a bug can be repeated its usually piss simple to fix at a glance. the rest is hell.

Re:They seem to have som problems though...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they're called "Heisenbugs" (check the Jargon file).

Re:They seem to have som problems though...

[Micah]

Huh. I recently compiled test10 with preempting on, and it works fine.

Re:They seem to have som problems though...

[kasperd]

I think they're called "Heisenbugs"

No a heisenbug is a bug which disapears when you try to debug the code, and which shows up again as soon as you stop debuging. A heisenbug can be easy to reproduce without debuging. Of course hard to reproduce heinsenbugs also exists, and can be quite hard to track down. I was experiencing one with xterm on Solaris systems. Sometimes my xterm command executed during login didn't open an xterm. For months I tried running my xterm under truss (the Solaris equivalent of strace), but it never failed. As soon as I stopped using truss, they started failing again.

A hard-to-repeat bug is ALWAYS the worse.

An easy to reproduce bug can also be difficult to track down. A friend of mine have a computer, that will crash if soundcard and IDE controller are busy at the same time (this happens with every 2.4.x kernel). Depending on the amount of activity, it might take minutes before crashing, but eventually it will always crash. I tried printing messages through the kernel log on entry and exit from every interrupt. No cases of one interrupt getting interrupted by another, and the last interrupt handler invoked did indeed return. So the crash happened outside the interrupt handlers. And when the system crash it simply stops dead with the IDE activity light permanently on. The system no longer handles interrupts, neither timer, nor keyboard can produce an interrupt. This is easy to reproduce and not a heisenbug, but still hard to track down.

2.6 Progress

[xirtam_work]

This is good news for Linux distribution makers as it gives them a good excuse to release a new major version number of their distro.

Also, as the Linux kernel continues to include features that are in demand both on the server like better mutliple CPU support and the desktop like USB & Firewire compatitiblity it is going to continue to go from strength to strength.

Now, what features would everyone like to see in the *next* major version?

For further preformace.

[rf0]

apply the mm patches which include bug fixes as well as nice to have other features. Prehaps its time to try 2.6 in production

Rus

Re:For further preformace.

[Anonymous Coward]

and you may want to check bugzilla for the 300+ bugs reported for 2.6 ...

The Best OS Ever!

[dimss]

Linux 2.6.0-test9 is the best kernel I've ever used. Waiting impatiently for release! Now I don't have any reasons to use BSD :)

JFS still has some issues and no DRI on Radeon 7500. Hope that will be OK soon.

Re:The Best OS Ever!

[Erik Soderstrom]

Yeah, I'm having heaploads of problems setting up my three-monitor lineup. It works now, but I find it very choppy without the DRI, so I truly hope it will be fixed someday...

Re:The Best OS Ever!

[dimss]

Is this problem Radeon specific or common kernel/X interface problem?

Re:The Best OS Ever!

[molarmass192]

JFS still has some issues

Hey, that's interesting! I had issues with JFS hanging (well not hanging but endless looping) on fsck on one box. I though it was the HD at first but swapping it out wasn't an immediate option, so I switched the problem partition to XFS and haven't had problems since (yet). I use JFS on pretty much everything else so I'd like to see whatever this is fixed.

Re:The Best OS Ever!

[dimss]

See http://www-124.ibm.com/developerworks/bugs/?func=d etailbug&bug_id=3795&group_id=35 for details

Re:The Best OS Ever!

[Erik Soderstrom]

I believe its Radeon specific.

Re:The Best OS Ever!

[molarmass192]

Thanks for the link. Doesn't look like the one I saw though. fsck.jfs was looping on phase 1 (Check Blocks, Files/Directories, and Directory Entries) on what I know what a directory entry corruption. I'm a little disappoint that I blew it away now since it would have been useful for debugging. If I see it again, I'll add some debug hooks to phase1_processing() in xchkdsk.c from jfsutils to see if I can pinpoint where the choke was.

YES: Gentoo and Source Mage do it

[FreeUser]

I upgraded to module-init and after that 2.4 wouldn't boot. grr.

Is there a way to have both installed so I could dual boot 2.4 and 2.6?

Gentoo GNU/Linux supports this, and I believe Source Mage does as well.

I run 2.6.0-test10 and 2.6.0-test9-mm5 on numerous Gentoo boxes with no problem, and occasionally switch back to 2.4.22 without difficulties.

I'm not sure how they do it exactly. A quick perusal of module-init-tools and modutils revealed that, for example, bot install /sbin/modinfo, and numerous symlinks to things like lsmod.old exist. There is probably a boot script that detects the kernel version on boot, creates the appropriate links, and then loads up the modules, but nothing in /etc/init.d jumped out at me as the culprit.

In any event, it is certainly possible have both installed and functional, and to seemlessly move between 2.4.x and 2.6.x kernels.

Re:YES: Gentoo and Source Mage do it

[supergeektux]

it actually is not a boot script... part of the module-init-tools install imvolves running make old or something like that (RTFM) and what happens is module-init-tools checks the kernel version and execures the .old versions if its a 2.4 kernel..at least from what i have observed

Missing topic!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wasn't this posted under the Caldera/SCO topic, you insensitive clod? You are completely denying my^h^h SCO's efforts to produce the code in the kernel!

sincerely,
Darl^h^h^h^h AC

My bet

[Vilim]

Sure, mid-December might be when its ready. But I'm sticking with my bet of a Christmas day release. Linus likes to release kernels on holidays (he did one on christmas a while back and noone can forget the greased turkey). Perhaps he will name this one the greased reindeer or something :p

Re:My bet

[naelurec]

*shrug* when will he learn?? He needs to release it NOW to cash in on the holiday buying rush. :)

Re:My bet

[Anonymous Coward]

how about stoned Santa

Re:Debian support

[BorgDrone]

Okay, you can run "testing", but I think a lot of the sysadmins only wants to run "stable" on their company machines.
People run 'stable' for a reason, that reason is that it's well tested, and that is exactly the reason why there won't be a 2.6 kernel in stable anytime soon.

Re:Debian support

[scharkalvin]

Debian supports 2.4 right now. You get your choice with 'woody'. True the default install CD DOES install 2.2, but if you boot with the BF24 image, you will install the 2.4 kernel. AND 2.4 kernel images ARE in the 'stable' package tree.

Debian does it.....

[PowerBert]

Debian does it, Gentoo does it, even liti-gat-ed SCO does it. Lets do it, lets dual boot GNU/Linux.

The modutils and module-init tools packages co-exist nicely on my Sid box.

2.421!

[Trejkaz]

Last month, for instance, Red Hat released its Enterprise Linux 3, which is based on the Linux 2.421 kernel.

Whoa there, cowboy! Redhat are 415 standard revisions ahead already, and using a testing version! ;-)

Red Hat builds

[Bernie]

It's worth reminding RH/Fedora users that Arjan van de Ven maintains kernel RPMs (including new module RPMs etc), and those with yum and apt can very easily test 2.6 using these files.

Read the readme.txt for full details.

Re:Red Hat builds

[ultranova]

It's worth mentioning that those kernels have been compiled with a different version of GCC than RH has. Therefore, trying to use the NVIDIA kernel module with them produces a warning, which I, for one, believed.

Re:Red Hat builds

[Erwos]

It happens with the vanilla kernels that Fedora installs, too.

Hint: nothing happens if you install them anyways.

-Erwos

Re:Red Hat builds

[Erwos]

Vanilla = "Red Hat standard", not the kernel.org ones.

Nothing = "Nothing bad - they work fine"

Must learn to preview!

-Erwos

Re:Red Hat builds

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also worth mentioning the Unofficial Fedora FAQ for all your Fedora frustrations.

After reading this and following some of it to fix some of the problems I had (esp. NVidia binary only driver, slowish performance. DRI screensavers crashing), I was much happier.
http://fedora.artoo.net/faq/#nVidia for the NVidia fix, and just http://fedora.artoo.net/faq for the full FAQ.

FreeBSD 5.2 Stable Release Due Around Same Time

[TJPile]

I'll just wait for that...

Mid-December.

Merry Christmas alternative OS people.

Re:FreeBSD 5.2 Stable Release Due Around Same Time

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeBSD to appear as the ghost of Christmas Past ... because it's DEAD !!!

About Java ...

[Anonymous Coward]

As Java is lot depending on multithreaded stuff, how do you expect speed to increase becaause of the huge improvements done in the thread handling techniques ?

Is there any need to recompile the application to get benefit of the nex threading technique ? or will all the existing applications benefit from this without "moving a single finger" ?

With Linux 2.6 and the upcoming Java2 1.5, Seatle's institution (the one that cost us a fortune and is not a wheel !) the we will have lot of headache to fight this winning team for the next couple of years on server side !!!!

Re:About Java ...

[MobyTurbo]

As Java is lot depending on multithreaded stuff, how do you expect speed to increase becaause of the huge improvements done in the thread handling techniques ?

Java does work faster, I notice the difference with RH9's backported NPTL. (New POSIX thread library). You have to use Sun Java 1.4.1 or later, however, earlier versions are incompatable.

Is there any need to recompile the application to get benefit of the nex threading technique ? or will all the existing applications benefit from this without "moving a single finger" ?

I assume the prompt changes the major JDK makers made in order to work with the NPTL in RH9 either will still work with the official NPTL in 2.6, or the Java vendors will make whatever changes are neccesary to get it to work. Linux is a major portion of the Java market, I don't think you have to worry about it not being supported.

Re:That'd be nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the world a favor: master english, and then crawl back into the left wing propaganda pamphlet that you crawled out of.

In Violation of GPL

[Dave_bsr]

If SCO loses its suit, it will be found in violation of the GPL, because it added extra conditions onto the end of the GPL. If SCO loses, they will be unable to further distribute that GPL'd code (section 4). So they just kicked themselves out of distributing Linux 2.6.

Re:In Violation of GPL

[unoengborg]

Unfortunately, they can still distribute other GPLed software e.g. samba. But on the other hand, if SCO loses, there will not be any SCO when IBM and Red Hat are done with them.

redhat supplies rpms

[Anonymous Coward]

they are here: http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/2.5/

I do expect redhat to come out with a release that defaults to 2.6 kernel first, because the next release of fedora has only one critical upgrade in it, the kerenel. there will be other stuff, probably
minor gnome/mozilla/python upgrades, but since Linus asked them (and most likely other distros as well) to release 2.6 default distro asap, and fedora is structured now that they could, then it probably will be...

Re:redhat supplies rpms

[BigGerman]

mod this up.
I did this on Fedora powered laptop via apt-get and it went to 2.6 kernel as a boot option without s single problem. I ran some tests and performance improvement is 15-20%.

2.6 speed improvments

[uidzer0dotorg]

has anyone seen any benchmarks of the speed improvments placed in the linux 2.6 series? I am running test10 right now and i must say i do notice a performance increase over 2.4 but it would be great to see some stats on the increase!

Stable ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Just tested 2.6.0-test10.

Must say memory management is blazing fast!

If they really plan to release this so soon then they have a long way to go with stabillity.

Framebuffer still crumbles screen, at least with Matrox G400 DualH. Samba3 works slow on upload, with 2.4.22 it is super fast. Same goos for NFS, almost chokes.

Hopefully IDE works ok now??

But if they realy manage it, i truly hope so then this is going to be a real good christmas :-).

Thanks for your attention.

PS: don't rush...

2.6 Kernel issues - Is it really ready?

[cronot]

I've been wanting to run the 2.6 on my Debian-unstable box, but I've been scared off by some of the negative reports I've heard so far. Some of them I've seen on comments from this article.

Most notably (for me) is devfs not being actively supported anymore (being shifted in favor of udev). That's sad, at least for me, because I've been using devfs since the early versions of the 2.4 kernel, it always worked well for me, and from what I've heard about udev so far, devfs seems like a more elegant and mature solution.

Then there are problems with USB devices, and others that, being narrowed down, comes down to problems on the APIC interface. From what I've heard so far, it doesn't look stable, so why ship it on linux 2.6?

There's also this problem with Kernel Preemption. I'm using it on my 2.4, and I don't want to go without it on 2.6. Of course I might just be lucky to no stumble on this problem, but the fact that it can trigger an oops on someone just scares the hell out of me.

Finally, there's a problem I've experienced myself, but didn't care to report at the time. It's quite old by now (I think it was around version 2.5.65~2.5.70). It has to do with software-raid. I've got a RAID-0 array with 3 SCSI Disks (6gb + 2x4gb = ~14Gb). The disks are old, I know, just like the controller (Adaptec AIC-7xxx). But they work just fine on the 2.4 kernel. So, at the time I decided to give 2.5 a try, just to find out that my array wasn't being detected/mounted. Googled around, found some similar reports and some possible workarounds, but none worked, so I switched back to the 2.4 kernel and haven't touched the development kernels since. It might just be resolved by now, I don't know... Anyway, I will soon replace these disks by a couple of IDEs, with no RAIDing, to save some CPU cycles, so this will not be such a big problem.

So, anyone care to give me one (or more) reason s to try 2.6 again?

Re:2.6 Kernel issues - Is it really ready?

[Dionysus]

Most notably (for me) is devfs not being actively supported anymore (being shifted in favor of udev).

Well, the reason devfs is not actively supported is because the maintainer disappeared, and nobody has stepped up to take over the code.

udev seems to solve the problem of only have /dev files that correspond to devices you have connected. But they are moving "back" to the old /dev/sg?1 etc. I much prefer the devfs nameing scheme (what do you do if you have more than 24 hds? The devfs had a solution for that).

Re:2.6 Kernel issues - Is it really ready?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the naming scheme is based on a config file, there is nothing stopping people from having a devfs naming scheme with udev. It is almost certain that this will happen at some point.

The devfs code suffered from many problems, not the least of which was that is was full of race conditions and was not completely safe. Then as you say the maintainer basically dropped off the map and nobody wanted to touch it.

udev is in userspace, is safe, fast, flexible, and is basically a much cleaner solution.

Re:2.6 Kernel issues - Is it really ready?

[Uma Thurman]

So do what I will do: run 2.4.x until 2.6.x gets into maintenance and the issues are ironed out. Remember how 2.4.x went? Some of the early versions would trash your hard disk. Now those problems are gone.

Re:2.6 Kernel issues - Is it really ready?

[ImpTech]

Well lets see... devfs still works fine, for me anyway. I suspect it'll just probably disappear when they start up 2.7. It is a very nice system, and its a shame to see it go, but what can you do.

All that APIC stuff is still being ironed out I guess. I only had a problem with that in test7 and test8, but with my archaic hardware (i440BX) I'm thankfully less prone to weirdness then, say, people with VIA or NVidia motherboards.

I'd never heard of these preemption problems until test10, and I've certainly never had one. YMMV, but whats the worst that will happen, the machine crashes?

I bet your SCSI problems are gone. I've got 2x9GB disks on an AIC-7XXX doing software RAID-0, and I've never had a problem. Of course, I started with 2.6.0-test1.

I think they broke something with the scheduler in test10, because all of a sudden my XMMS skips again (not often, but 100x more often than in test1-test9), but otherwise for me its been a very good release. Seems like most of the people who are having troubles are running laptops or using pretty new motherboards/cpus.

Re:2.6 Kernel issues - Is it really ready?

[taobill]

I've got a RAID-0 array with 3 SCSI Disks (6gb + 2x4gb = ~14Gb). The disks are old...

Using RAID0? You must be a nutbar.

Using RAID0 on old hard disks!!! Top of the line wacko looney tooney.

Re:2.6 Kernel issues - Is it really ready?

[Anonymous Coward]

udev architecture allows differents nameschmes, with the namedev component. And AFAIK, the guy who is doing udev is implementing the "standard" and "devfs" nameschemes, at least.

PS: look at http://lwn.net/Articles/28897/

Leo.

Re:2.6 Kernel issues - Is it really ready?

[tuxdude]

It is very simple to configure udev to use devfs naming. Just see the sample config file that comes with udev.

Re:2.6 Kernel issues - Is it really ready?

[DreadSpoon]

"Then there are problems with USB devices, and others that, being narrowed down, comes down to problems on the APIC interface [slashdot.org]. From what I've heard so far, it doesn't look stable, so why ship it on linux 2.6?"

Because a huge number of modern machines *require* ACPI in order to operate properly. my machine at work (Compaq Evo) requires it to reboot properly, my laptop can't be on for more than a few minutes without it, my home-built desktop machine needs it for a few things, etc.

Distributors or knowledgable users who know ACPI won't work for them and/or don't care about loss of features or inability to run on a wide-range of machines can just disable ACPI, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal.

Re:2.6 Kernel issues - Is it really ready?

[Dionysus]

I realize it's probably easy, but as far as I knew, nobody had done it (the last message I found from the udev maintainer was requesting someone to write it. I was considering doing it as soon as I got around to installing a 2.6.x system with udev).

There are some indication from other people in this thread that it has already been done, so I don't know.

I still think the community would be better off standardizing on the devfs nameing scheme than the "old" lanana scheme.

Re:That'd be nice

[ultranova]

"HAHHAHHAA !!! Now, we're gonna drop a few nukes to Washington and skin alive a couple hundred hostages and smear salt to their wounds and feed babies to sharks and..."

"Excuse me, sir."

"What is it ?!? Can't you see I'm busy planning ?"

"Sir, according to the license of the new Linux kernel version, it cannot be legally used by terrorists."

Long silence.

In a tiny voice: "Um, maybe, maybe, just maybe, just this once, we could use it anyway ?"

"SIR ! YOU ARE NOT GOING TO COMMIT COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, ARE YOU !?!"

Stunned silence. Horrified looks from all around. Then: "No, of course not ! Please forgive me, I don't know what came over me !"

"Good. Some things are just going too far. Now, shall I start with skinning the prisoners ?"

"No, feed the babies to sharks first, and let the hostages watch. Remember to cut those babies stomachs open first, so the sharks will smell blood. And tell our IT people to start planning to migrate to one of the BSDs."

"Very good, sir."

Knoppix

[scavenger87]

When will there be a nice KNOPPIX ISO-file running this new 2.6.0-kernel for us clueless ones?

any info on improved SATA support?

[daltec]

I am very much looking forward to improved hardware support in the 2.6 kernel, because even 2.4.2 doesn't seem to work as advertised. I cannot get Red Hat or Slackware to play nicely with my Maxtor SATA hd (ICH5 on the motherboard), even though SATA support is supposed to be native. Anybody have any info yet on how well 2.6 will work with SATA?

Re:any info on improved SATA support?

[QSO_Wizard]

I just tinker with linux, and before Mandrake 9.2 I was completely unable to get linux installed on my new system, which has SATA hard drives. I wasn't very hopeful when Mandrake 9.2 was released, but I thought I would give it a try. Fortunately, Mandrake 9.2 recognized my hard drives immediately and I had no problems installing it.

Re:any info on improved SATA support?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an ICH5 motherboard (ASUS P4C800-E) & I am using a SATA drive (not using RAID however). I had some issues getting it to work properly until I compiled & used 2.4.22. Since then, everything has been working great. I haven't tried it on 2.6 yet -- was waiting for final release.

Re:any info on improved SATA support?

[daltec]

Hmmmm....now that you mention it, I think I am not up to 2.4.22 yet. I have an Intel D865PERL board, and man I sure would like to try out Blender and the Gimp with that machine....maybe trying to get 2.4.22 going will be my project for the weekend? Thanks for the advice....

Any distro with kernel 2.6 and KDE 3.2 yet?

[KamuSan]

Are there any experimental distros with kernel 2.6 and KDE 3.2 already?
I don't have time to compile everything myself, so it has to be at least a little user friendly ;-)

Re:Any distro with kernel 2.6 and KDE 3.2 yet?

[Ice_Balrog]

Mandrake 9.2
Fedora Core 1
Dedian Unstable
Gentoo
...Among others...

Re:Any distro with kernel 2.6 and KDE 3.2 yet?

[KamuSan]

9.2 has kernel 2.6? Cool, shame I just ran out of blank CDs :-(

Re:Any distro with kernel 2.6 and KDE 3.2 yet?

[ErixTr]

Just copy the isos to their own partition on hard disk. Then use a boot disk to start the installation. (You can find the boot image in the first cd.)

Re:Any distro with kernel 2.6 and KDE 3.2 yet?

[Micah]

With Gentoo you can be as experimental, or as stable, as you want.

I'm running test10 and KDE 3.2beta, all emerged from ebuilds. :) Works great.

Re:Any distro with kernel 2.6 and KDE 3.2 yet?

[KamuSan]

Good idea, thanks!

ACPI support

[mplex]

Speaking of ACPI, I have been having lots of problems. I can't get swsusp to work with to the 2.6.0-test9 kernel, nor can I get S3 support to work on my Fujitsu P5010 laptop (It never comes back). Oh how I wish I just had APM support back. Has anyone gotten swsusp to work? I've tried multiple patches to no avail and the builtin support seems to be broken? Anyone else have any experience with it on the latest kernels?

Re:Xmas, SCO is very evil

[Anonymous Coward]

was AT&T's Unix copyied from MULTICS?

why was Unix from SCOuuugggh?

open4free

Distros will be slow to implement a STABLE

[cjjjer]

You'll be lucky to see this version in a distro before 2005. With the problems they had with 2.4.0 right out of the gates things will be very slow. It will probably be something like 2.6.4 or something that will be the final kernel most of them go with.

Re:Distros will be slow to implement a STABLE

[BlueLightning]

On the other hand, there are probably more users and developers testing the pre-release versions ahead of 2.6.0 than there were for 2.4.0, and we also now have OSDL doing serious enterprise-level testing of Linux as a core part of their operations.

Things are already looking very positive for 2.6.0, and I'd say if the benefits of moving to 2.6 are significant (and I think they are) then distro makers will switch to it pretty quickly.

only...

[Dave_bsr]

They can't distribute Samba if they at one time violated Samba distribution in reference to the GPL. Of course it will be a big legal hullaballoo and SCO will likely be dead by then, but...yeah.

alsa sound kernel support

[HelloKitty]

I'm looking forward to the end the nasty OSSFree, and the beginning of the silky smooth default included Alsa sound kernel.

no more annoying upgrading my system to Alsa when I want to make it into a professional audio workstation

Re:alsa sound kernel support

[hacker]

"I'm looking forward to the end the nasty OSSFree, and the beginning of the silky smooth default included Alsa sound kernel."

Silky smooth, not-as-loud, perceptable-hiss Alsa? No thank you. I'll stick with OSS. The implementation might suck, but the sound reproduction on every card and speaker pair I've thrown OSS at (studio-level gear, not Labtec speakers here), is centuries beyond what today's Alsa can do. I can't stand that constant background hiss, even at low volumes (which Alsa seems to excel at; low volumes).

OSS goes louder, clearer, and sounds much more lifelike than Alsa's "mechanial" reproduction of sound.

But of course, YMMV, and I'm glad you found something that works for you.

Re:alsa sound kernel support

[BlueLightning]

Have you reported this to the ALSA developers as a bug? Considering ALSA is the way Linux is heading, this would be a problem worth solving and reporting it would be helpful.

Re:alsa sound kernel support

[CTachyon]

If you hear a hiss or have volume trouble, it means that the ALSA driver for your particular card you're using is buggy and not initializing the card correctly, and it has nothing to do with the ALSA core itself. File a bug report with ALSA, and include which driver you're using and what card you have, because it'll never get fixed if the developers are never told about it.

For Embedded systems, kernel is getting too large

[Anonymous Coward]

Already I have to make large tricks to get a single 2.4 bootfloppy. With 2.6 that comes down to nearly impossible. If i select an ALL-NO kernel its already 1.3 Mb. I would like to see the kernel downsized to around 500Kb with ALL-NO so I can make a single bootfloppy.

And yes, I still have hardware that has no CDrom and just a network boot. Gentoo is ideal on this installation but I can't get Gentoo on it using a 2.6 bootfloppy.

So basicly, I don't understand what the embedded system guys are on about. The new 2.6 kernel is a spacehog. Embedded systems can of course easily be a P-IV 2Ghz with plenty of ram, but mine is a simple 48Mb memory P-75. It does its job without even working a sweat so I see no reason to upgrade the hardware.

In essence, I have to use at least a heavily modified linux kernel to get my bootfloppy and with 2.6 nearly ready I will see support for 2.2 and 2.4 start to fade.

Dear moderators,

[greppling]

why is it that always people get a +5 Informative when they post a bug report to slashdot instead of sending it to LKML? When Logitech wireless hypersonic ultra XZ763 keyboard isn't working, the responsible maintainer should be informed, but why post it here?

Those who are interested in such reports should read LKML. Let's keep slashdot for posts of general interest.

Re:Dear moderators,

[IncohereD]

Not everyone who reads slashdot reads LKML, yet many who read slashdot want to know if the Kernel is buggy before they try it. I'm happy to see bug reports, at least for major bugs.

Re:Dear moderators,

[kasperd]

Not everyone who reads slashdot reads LKML

I would recomend taking a look on Kernel Traffic. At least read the headlines, they are available as RSS. Personally I have KNewsTicker showing headlines from Slashdot, LWN, KT, and a few Danish news sites. (BTW where do I send bug reports about KNewsTicker, is slashdot appropriate? :-)

Lets all sing along....

[Steve Fuller]

All I want for Christmas is my two point six,
My two point six, see my two point six.
Gee, if I could only have my two point six,
Then I could wish you "Merry Christmas."

Apologies to Don Gardner

On RedHat 7-9, fetch and compile modutills SRC RPM

[GodWasAnAlien]

Rusty's rpm has both source trees, and creates the proper modprobe and modprobe.old files needed in Linux 2.6 or 2.4.

http://www.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people /r usty/modules/modutils-2.4.21-22.src.rpm

Re:For Embedded systems, kernel is getting too lar

[stef49]

Same for me!
I have an old C64 and Linux doesn't fit on a tape and even less in memory. I guess that I will have to buy a 64k extension and an external floppy drive.

cool!

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

>>Get ready for 'major scalability improvements, >>faster performance, enhanced support for >>embedded systems and, to a lesser extent,' a >>kernel that 'supplies desktop systems with >>better USB and FireWire support.'"

This means that UT2003 is going to finally work?? .... it's not for me ... it's ... for my little brother ... i have to go ... : )

My old prediction

[MicroBerto]

I don't feel like looking for my post in the posting we had here back when 2.6 was announced for testing, but I did predict a release of Dec. 9 (my birthday)... looks like I still have a good shot of winning the bet!

Re:My old prediction

[bbk]

Woo! Same birthday as me!

(this has been a pointless, offtopic bit of joy. yay)

BBK

Re:My old prediction

[ErixTr]

Dec. 9 (my birthday)

By posting your birthday here, you will be the proud owner of the first slashdoted party.

Multiple Firewire drives?

[ArghBlarg]

Does anyone know if support for more than one firewire drive is stable yet? My machine locked hard (no panic even) with the last 2.4.x kernel I tried... one 1394 drive is fine, but add two and things went very badly. The ieee1394 project on sourceforge didn't have any news about this bug, last time I checked.

I'd dearly love to get my machine running mirrored filesystems on multiple firewire drives -- easy hot-swapped, redundant, portable storage.

Someone please email me if they've had any success (what exact kernel version you used, etc.)

Re:Multiple Firewire drives?

[cxreg]

I have a linux machine with 2 firewire pci cards in it with a total of 5 drives plugged in, working flawlessly.

I suspect the issue is with your controller card driver, or the card itself. We're using Adaptec FireConnect 4300 cards with Texas Instruments TSB12LV26 chips on them in 2.4.18

And it has crypto built in, too!

[karlandtanya]

'Course I already used the patch, but it's nice to have it there.

Now...can anybody tell me the argument to specify aes keysize? -k doesn't seem to work anymore.

Try SuSE 9

[IronTomFlint]

I've got an ICH5 board and a Seagate SATA drive. The RH 9 installer wouldn't even boot, so I went to FreeBSD for a while, waiting for things to catch up in Linux (FreeBSD 5.1-RELEASE worked fine).

I just installed SuSE 9, and it works fine. One caveat: on my machine, I had to add the following options:

apm=off acpi=ht

in order to get the thing working. And now it works fine. I'm not sure that I'm up to full SATA speed yet, but it's pretty fast.

Re:Try SuSE 9

[daltec]

Thanks, I have SuSE 8 on another machine - looks like going to 9 might fix my problems! Appreciate the assistance!

Re:Try SuSE 9

[IronTomFlint]

After further thought, a couple more suggestions:

Although the default kernel would not boot after the install completed, the failsafe would. So I started playing around with the command-line options there until I found a combination that worked properly (the failsafe one turns off more stuff than is necessary; for one thing, IDE DMA works on my box, and the failsafe turns it off).

The acpi=ht option might not help you; IIRC, the ht is for hyperthreading, so unless you have a P4 with hyperthreading enabled, this might not do you any good.

HTH, HAND

Welcome to the immaturity of Linux

[bonch]

That sort of unprofessionalism and contradictory development would be stomped out in any organization that had a financial investment in producing professional, streamlined output.

I'm sure I'll be marked as "Troll" for that, so I unchecked karma bonus accordingly. Just stating my opinion.

Re:Welcome to the immaturity of Linux

[dylan_-]

would be stomped out in any organization that had a financial investment in producing professional, streamlined output.

Actually, no. In an "organization that had a financial investment in producing professional, streamlined output" HyperDev would be dropped because the Head of Team SupraDev had recently become engaged to the boss's niece. Only half of Team HyperDev would be informed of this, and no-one in Team CyberDeX (which depends on the correct Dev) would be informed at all. Marketing would state that the product would be ready in three weeks, despite the fact that none of them even know what CyberDeX does.

CyberDeX would be released 3 months later and if you tried to use it with more than 2 users it would fall over. A patch would be released 6 weeks later which allowed you to have 3 users. The product would crash daily.

One year later CyberDeX would finally become something approaching stable with the release of Service Pack 4, which essentially rips out SupraDev and puts HyperDev back in.

The head of Team SupraDev gets promotion and a raise.

um... are you serious???

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm... lets see, how about every unix ever distributed. not to mention this discussion is about fricken KERNELS, not end-user features like zip.

Benchmarks here (linux 2.4, 2.6, *bsd)

[Szplug]

here

Answer me please

[novakane007]

I've asked this question 3 times before and never gotten an answer.
I heard talk of 2.6 kernel using multi-threading to speed up the boot process. Was this included in the kernel or held off because of the code freeze?

Re:Answer me please

[BlueLightning]

The kernel doesn't control the boot process in the way you're thinking of - init takes over in fairly short order.

Some technical details here and here if you're interested.

Re:Answer me please

[deek]

• I heard talk of 2.6 kernel using multi-threading to speed up the boot process. Was this included in the kernel or held off because of the code freeze?

Here's an answer: I have no idea.

But honestly, the kernel doesn't take very long to boot up anyway. The real delay comes from the init bootup sequence, and there's a few solutions out there already to speed that up, by executing init scripts simultaneously.

Re:Now you can have those 64 CPUs (actually 512)

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, NASA and SGI are working on a box built by SGI for NASA which has 512 processors. They ran Linux 2.6x on it with 128 and 256 processors without problems, but are finding a few kinks with 512. Some of the problems listed on LKML are (were) -out of memory error when running cat /proc/cpu. (Which has since been fixed --not just for mips boxen but for all architectures as that isn't architecture/cpu specific code. So yeah, 64 processors for most, 512 processors for some (and Beowulf clusters with thousands of processors for all).

LVM to LVM2 in kernel 2.6

[SteelX]

Does anyone have any information on migrating an existing LVM'ed ext3 filesystem to LVM2 in 2.6? Is there a safe and reliable way to do this?

KErnel

[RedHat_Linux_Man]

Kernel 2.6.0 would make a very nice stocking-stuffer.

Re:Debian support

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean anytime soon to be this week? The 'stable' version is expected to be out within one month. So anytime soon means any time within the next three weeks.

better stability again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every release if Linux is accompanied with words "increased stability", "improved stabitility", etc. I am not trolling here, I know that Linux can be up for months(even years). Do they refer to kernel stability on a subsystem layer (better interplay between e.g. mm and io units) or are they talking about better device driver stability? Just an honest curiosity.

Obligatory version joke

[Anonymous Coward]

Yawn. Wake me when it gets to 3.11

Re:better

[jo42]

Hmmm, yes, but will it make format c: go any faster?

Yay

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks, kernel guys!
That's just the best Christmas present I would dream for! (Asides from health and happiness for familly and friends)

Stop waiting...

[fer_luck]

Guess I ain't gonna have to wait too long to se test11, since I'm downloading it right now! :)

test11

[msaavedra]

A final test11 version is expected before they sign off on the production version next month.

Actually, according to kernel.org, linux-2.6.0-test11 was released today.

Just to be sure...

[smartdreamer]

I am in a hurry to go towards version 2.6. But before it is necessary that I would be sure of a thing : does that violate the intellectual properties of SCO?
If so, then I switch! ;-)

Hey, this will be my biggest Christmas gift!

notebooks unusable kernel 2.6.0: trackpoint ??

[Moritz Moeller - Her]

I see no way to get a sane behaviour like in 2.4 from the trackpoint ps/2 device in 2.6. The middle button can not be used to scroll text in X-4.3. It pastes and scrolls at the same time.

Maybe someone needs to add a dedicated serio driver for trackpoints? I thought IBM was a great linux supporter? What about my desktop now?

A Very Linux Christmas ...

[deek]

On the first day of christmas,
My true love gave to me,
A stocking with a Linux Kernel 2.6.0 CD.

On the second day of christmas,
I sent my ex-true love packing.


And we all wonder why geeks don't have many girlfriends/boyfriends/whatever is your fancy (not that there's anything wrong with that) ...

Ethernet

[Micah]

My biggest gripe with 2.6 is that when I reboot, ethernet seems to be hosed, and I have to physically power the computer off and on or it just hangs while fetching DHCP info.

I have a 3C905b. Hope they fix this!

Off you go then

[boots@work]

If you like devfs so much, why don't you maintain it yourself?

Reserve Your Copy Now!!!!

[Brad1138]

Send your money NOW and reserve your copy!
Send money to:


The SCO Group
355 South 520 West, Suite 100
Lindon, Utah 84042
USA.
801.765.4999 phone
801.765.1313 fax

Re:MODS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, there's nothing more gratifying than bitch slapping a moderator who wastes mod points on a AC post. ( Metamod )

Quite frankly you should be rofl atm. Some people are just plain stupid and there's no stupidity filter when the engine picks daily moderators.

Sure was nice

[siskbc]

Lastly, 3.x never had a Kernel, it was effectively a big graphical library and program launcher, and not much more.

Yeah, that was great, wasn't it? Seriously, it was nice when Windows would crash - yet, not take down the whole damned box! Novel concept, I realize.

Do you have a reference for the HP and SGI patents

[DaveAtFraud]

See subject. Some folks over at www.groklaw.net would probably be very interested in this. If nothing else, e-mail the reference to PJ at groklaw.com (she runs the site and, yeah, the e-mail address is .com but the site is .net).

Kernel 2.6 is very good

[hayriye]

Now I don't have any reasons to use Windows 98.