Slashdot Mirror
Future of 2.4 and 2.6 Kernels
Blair16 writes "According to this article on C|Net, not everybody is chomping at the bit for the new Linux 2.6.0 kernel. Marcelo Tosatti, the appointed deputy for the 2.4 kernel is not expecting to make any non-crucial additions to the popular kernel, saying that all new projects should be pumped into the new 2.6. This has upset some people who are not quite willing to move to so-called untested software. Some of their claims seem legitimate, but I wonder if all these people will really be left in the cold?"
From the linked email:
Having that mentioned, I pretend to: - Fix pending problems which might required more intrusive modifications during 2.4.24. New drivers will be accept during this period (for example, Cyclades PC300 driver, input userlevel driver support, or other sane driver which might come up). - From 2.4.25 on, fix only critical/security problems.
Heh, so that solves the issue of being a kernel maintainer with little time on your hands, only pretend to do stuff :)
From the story text:
. This has upset some people who are not quite willing to move to so-called untested software. Some of their claims seem legitimate, but I wonder if all these people will really be left in the cold
Seriously, are people expecting major changes and new features to be added to a kernel that is supposed to be the stable branch? Doesnt this stuff belong in 2.6? or hell, even 2.7? I for one wouldnt like my kernel to constantly have new and untested features when its supposed to be production capable!
Linux kernels are generally released when ready and not sooner.
I don't know, but shouldn't someone actually test it to become tested? This is the way Open Source works, everyone should help developing the software, even non-programmers, by testing, and I guess the kernel team won't release something for production until it is ready for.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
Hasn't this discussion been held before? Stable kernel remain just that - Stable.
New features always go in new releases. Since 2.6 is around the corner, any new feature need to go in 2.7 now. Big deal. Move along, nothing new or interesting to see here.
How do these guys have any credibility? Aren't they just fanboys for whonever buys ads, or for whomever [SPIFFY CONSULTANCY COMPANY] says is the Next Big Thing. Want information? Ask RedHat. Ask Linus. Ask the folks at SuSE. What's next, Slashdotters panicking when Dvorak weighs in on kernel patches?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Of course people want new features AND stability.
Pretty funny.
He sent another mail later that he ment "intend".
;)
Apparently enough people had sent him a patch for that one
If the "well tested" 2.4 kernel were to be adding new features, such new features might risk making it unstable, therefore the time-tested status it has would have to be restarted.
If 2.6 isn't "well tested" enough for your production servers, wait a while. The test of time will perform itself... of course, if you want the new features, you'll just have to take the plunge because somebody's gotta do the testing...
I think the benefits of a few bugs outweigh the problems they may cause. If I can save 5 million dollars in a server deployment and there's a slight risk of a crash but my data is safe then I'll run that risk.
However some companies are still running RH 7.2 so there will be those who stick with the 2.4 kernel as long as they can. This will more likely be the groups that are unable to move their software from 2.4 to 2.6 due to how they built their systems possibly.
Does anyone know if this new kernel will support nVidia's nforce2 motherboard? I have it and use the integrated ethernet adapter, but I can't it to work in Linux. It'd be nice to see support for it compiled into a kernel perhaps, or maybe offered as an easier-to-use module. I'm a total newbie, but the learning curve is somewhat steep.
I for one welcome our new lazy-ass overlords
Fortunately, there are a few really interesting technologies that have received surprisingly little attention, but which I believe point the way toward Linux overtaking Microsoft, and perhaps even Apple on the desktop:
- Dashboard
- Zero Install
- Gnome Storage
These projects are the future of Linux, they are novel ideas that will allow Linux to leap-frog its non-free competitors on the desktop. It is a shame that they receive so little attention.This is a wonderful idea where a "dashboard" essentially acts as a memory augmentation tool. It watches what you are doing and presents information it thinks might be relevant. For example, if you are chatting with someone on IRC, it will look for information about that person and present it to you (such as their name, homepage, recent blog entries etc). Applications can support it by sending it "clue packets" to alert it to what it might want to pay attention to.
This software essentially eliminates the process of information by mapping web-servers to the filesystem, and combining this with a fast local cache. If your software relies on another piece of software, it can just refer to its binary or libraries on this "web" filesystem, and the appropriate files will be downloaded transparently. The next time you need them, they will be cached. It is infinitely cooler than DEBs or RPMs, and very flexible indeed.
This project blurs the line between filesystems and databases, creating much more flexibility than is possible with more conventional filesystems. This is particularly powerful when combined with Zero Install. Microsoft is also moving in this direction with their WinFS that will be part of Longhorn.
Microsoft no longer develops for Windows 98... Apple no longer develops for OS9...
So they don't want to move on to "untested" 2.6? If people added features to 2.4, it would become just as untested. Nobody's saying to halt all development on 2.4, just not to add new features. Stability fixes will still go in... heck, stability and security fixes are still being added to 2.2! Those who don't want "untested" software favor stability and security anyways... so stick with 2.4.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
Well then "some people" can get off their butts, or cough up the cash to do it themselves. It's amazing how some people who use free software think that the developers owe them something.
Erm, no. They wrote it, they can do what they like, how they like and when they like. They don't have to put in features if they don't want to. They certainly don't have to justify their work or decisions to anyone except their contributing peers. If you don't like it please whine to somebody else. Nobody is stopping you from backporting code or doing it yourself.
this discussion happens every time there's a new stable kernel version. people get mad, the new kernel is a bit buggy at first, but then things smooth out and pretty much everybody upgrades unless they don't need to or don't want to..
move along folks, nothing to see here.
The logical volumes manager (device-mapper) is still incomplete in current 2.6 kernels.
:
Snapshots don't work without an experimental patches.
Other patches are needed to make EVMS properly work.
This is a showstopper.
However, if you don't need virtual volumes, yes, 2.6 definitely
1) rocks
2) is stable.
{{.sig}}
But for slightly different reasons. It's not like 98 was terribly stable or anything. :-)
(\(\
(^v^)
(")")
This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
Checking SCO site, I couldn't find anything regarding the new 2.6 kernel, so I guess no additional fees are charged over the 2.4 kernel, you can upgrade guys with no worries.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
Some of their claims seem legitimate, but I wonder if all these people will really be left in the cold?
Of course they will, and they will get the traditional open source answer to such situations - "If you want it so bad stop whining and do it yourself. Nobody is stopping you, and, after all, you do have the source. See how great open source is? If this were Microsoft you would be stuck, no source, no nothing."
I personaly do not see any problems with this. If someone want the latest and greatest in the current version of the kernel. They can either port it themsevles or pay someone to do it for them. This is the beauty of opensource. In any case the major vendors of linux will do this at times the featues is really wanted by thier customer base.
Get Movie Posters
Sorry but this the way the world of software works. The old version gets put into maintainance mode and eventually is retired. In the Linux world as far as kernels go users and companies have much better deal then they get in the commercial closed source world. For example company X wants to stay on 2.4 for some odd reason. Once 2.6 comes out 2.4 will still be around and updated for security flaws AND they can add/remove/improve 2.4 inhouse any way they want. Sounds like these people just want OSS hackers to continue to do free work for them on an old kernel without regard for the natural order of things. It's all a bit selfish really. They are course free to migrate to an OS where they have Zero control over the kernel and when updates stop, they just stop.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
In the meantime, there are some bugfixes that look like new features; that's the way software works. There are some new features that look like bugs; ditto. We know that security bugs are considered vital no matter how old the kernel (well, to a point). And so someone often will fix that.
All that to say that it's called "software" because it's squishy and can change (or be changed). And there's nothing besides lack of time that keeps you from including a new feature in 2.0, 2.2, or 2.4 and putting up a patch archive to support your favorite feature/fix that "someone" really should have put in long ago. To paraphrase my Subject line, "one man's trash is another man's treasure".
According to a statement by a company spokesman, Microsoft is not expected to make any non-crucial additions to the popular Windows 98, NT4, 2000 operating systems, saying that all new projects should be pumped into the new Windows 2003 server, or Windows XP. This has upsome some people who are not quite willing to move to the so-called untested software. Some of their claims seem legitimate, but I wonder if all these people will really be left in the cold?
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
And it's working great. That's 2 weeks without rebooting.
Now, I don't do anything critical or really strain the kernel at all, but it works great...never had one lick of trouble. It's also very peppy!
But for people running critical servers and the like, I can understand their reluctance.
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Marcello's position means that the 2.4.x will become much more solid than any Linux kernel has ever been. As new hardware is introduced, there will be pressure to accept drivers to support popular hardware. I expect that Marcello will accept drivers as necessary for 2.4.x to run on popular hardware -- after all, such new drivers impose minimal risk on users without such hardware. I welcome this development, but will keep on open mind as time prove its merit or lack thereof.
When Linus released 2.4.0, there was a several
month pause before opening 2.5.0. This was to
allow continued bugfix and stabilization work
to happen on 2.4.0. It seems reasonable that
he would do the same w/ 2.6/2.7. So, there should
not be any fear of 2.6 suffering from developer
inattention in the several months after release.
If Linus doesn't release 2.7, the developers can't
ignore 2.6.
i will get a 2.6.xx kernel when most the major distros start packageing them with their distros
Well, Linus recommends that distros start offering 2.6.0 kernels as an installation option. It may happen quite quickly (I remember having the option to use either a rock-solid 2.2 or a "not tested as thoroughly" 2.4) some time ago.
Their example is of people who are using XFS with a 2.4 kernel. These people are (according to CNet) "upset" because XFS won't get added to 2.4. Now just think about this for a second: they are using XFS with 2.4 right now! So obviously, they are not being prevented from doing what they want. The whole issue (which CNet is trying to make out as a big deal) is that these people wish they didn't have to perform an extra step (applying a third-party patch). I hardly think it's going to kill these people to keep on doing what they have been doing for a little while longer (i.e. until they decide that the 2.6 series is sufficiently tested that they're willing to trust it). No one is being "left in the cold".
Actually, to be fair to CNet, they're only mildly misrepresenting the situation. The major source of confusion and misrepresentation is (as usual) the slashdot summary.
Exactly what are they bitching about? If they don't want to run untested software, they should run 2.4. If they want new features, they should run 2.6.
So, if untested patches go into 2.4, does that make them anything more stable? The logics of this just escapes me...
I'd like to point out that the nature of open-source de-emphasizes the importance of central decisions such as this.
Linus and his helpers are the de-facto maintainers, yes, because people find they generally make a good job of it. AFAIK the only legal claim they have is to the name "linux".
If you want the 2.4 kernel line to still have new features added, fine. Download the source, add the features, put it up for download. You could even apply the security and stabilisation patches from the main tree to your "experimental" tree..
This isn't a problem. A kernel is a kernel, not a complete OS installation. If 2.6 doesn't work dandy, people can (freely) hop back to 2.4 until 2.6 is solidified, even if it has "gone gold".
This doesn't even begin to sound like a problem. They'll be on 2.6 soon enough - whether it's a "tried platform" sooner or later.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
If you want to know better the status of XFS read up on the lkml. The cnet article doesn't even explain the good reasons not to include it. Even in 2.6, just in the last couple days, some serious issues have cropped up with it. At there has been some indication that XFS is related to the slab corruption.
There is very little reason to include it in the stable 2.4, when there may be unresolved issues. I'm not saying that you shouldn't use XFS, but it needs more work than to be in 2.4 by default. Lets face it, XFS has alot of cruft still. The main development right now is in the unstable branch 2.6, which is basically XFS's status. If XFS wants to prove it's stable enough for 2.4, it should do so in 2.6, and then it will get back ported then.
Generally, when something is not ready for a stable line, it doesn't have enough people using it. Even linus said recently that he knows very few people that use XFS.
people don't have to use it. They can tell Marco and Linus to fuck off for stranding them after they told their execs that Linux was better and more stable - which might be the case for the server uptime, but perhaps not for the development model.
And the companies that make money off Linux, especially the ones like Red Hat who have yet to use any sort of 2.6 for anything, who EMPLOY people who make major contributions, don't have to continue to contribute the time of their employees.
Open source may not mean the developers OWE you something, but there are expectations that are fair, like not abandoning the current standard before the next one has already come out!
Come on!
If you want to use 2.4, keep using it.
Sheesh, there are still 2.2, and 1.2.13 boxed kicking around doing work.
If you don't need new features, you can keep using an old kernel.
If you need new features, you probaly want a new kernel anyway.
For future reference, the term is "champing at the bit", not "chomping at the bit":
http://www.brainydictionary.com/words/ch/champ1
Its a equine/race track metaphor. When a horse wants to run and you hold it back it impatiently grinds its teeth.
Chapel Hill, NC
**turns beet red and tries to change the subject**
But he should have said "reality == C|Net" then he wouldn't have made the mistake, or it would give a compilation error.
gcc post
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
The big deal is that there IS NO 2.6 yet! How can we have the maintainer of, what is as of this writing, the current branch of Linux saying nothing new is going in?
Seriously, if 2.6.2 or 2.6.3 were out, this would be a much different scenario, but we're only at 2.6.0-test11, so refusing to add new features to the newest non-development kernel strikes me as a major league bad decision!
This has upset some people who are not quite willing to move to so-called untested software. Some of their claims seem legitimate, but I wonder if all these people will really be left in the cold.
This is really not true, since almost ALL the features in the 2.6 branch are available as patches for the 2.4. The 2.4 branch has achieved a nice level of maturity and adding a lot of new stuff to it now makes no sense.
The people complaining should learn the magic of open source. They should realise that at any desirable time they can start mantaining their own tree with their desired features. Hell, starting a new tree is not even necessary since there is such a big variety of 2.4 trees around that the feature they want is most likely already beeing supported by someone else in one of them.
You're in luck: Transgaming sells API implementations that support games like D2 and CS on Linux. (Actually they sell "subscriptions" but whatever.)
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
I don't get your point. He is about STABILISING 2.4 kernel, NOT about adding new and new features to vanilla kernel and so causing maintaining 2.4 kernel difficult. It's stable now, so let's leave it alone. If you want use XFS with 2.4 kernel, do your patching and go. No one forbids you to do that. And about a trust - I trust my Linux systems. Only because I run them by myself. Not because Linux development is somehow more superior that FreeBSD (or vice versa).
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I agree, and C/NET articles usually repeat their concerns, even the most minor ones.
I personally use 2.6 test 11 and while I can't tell if it is anymore stable than 2.4, it is much easier to compile (very few errors vs. vanilla 2.4), and the layout is far easier to understand.
I think it is a good thing to make people move to the 2.6 for new features. The 2.4 kernel will become more stable as less features are added, in theory, and it is open source. I mean they can just add the code themselves like what SGI mentioned about what they did with XFS in the article.
> Want information? Ask RedHat. Ask Linus. Ask the folks at SuSE.
Yes. I mean, God knows those people won't be biased. It's only Linus' most famous accomplishment. He's a good guy, so he'll not have the slightest bias what-so-ever in any way. And RedHat's not supporting their business model on this stuff, are they? And SuSE, well, they're Germans! That alone should tell you that they'll have no bias for something that their income depends on.
Just name 2.6.* something like 2.4.(*+26). Then they continue working on 2.4 Or maybe just tell the idiots to get lost.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Since 2.4 won't be getting anything other than bug fixes, you won't have to contend with other people making other changes.
You just grab a copy of tree and start your own development.
You get your stuff stable AND TESTED and then you talk to the maintainer about adding it.
"I am terrified of the following scenario, which is extremely probable to happen soon," responded Jan Rychter in a Wednesday post. "2.4 is being moved into 'pure maintenance' mode and people are being encouraged to move to 2.6. While people slowly start using 2.6, Linus starts 2.7 and all kernel developers move on to the really cool and fashionable things. 2.6 bug reports receive little attention, as it's much cooler to work on new features than fix bugs."
What insight! I can't imagine how anybody could see that far into the future as Jan Rychter.
So many people use the "cooler to work on new features" argument without evidence. Since when has Linux favoured new features over fewer bugs? Linux 2.4 bugs receive plenty of attention, thank you very much -- so do Linux 2.2 bugs and 2.0 bugs.
Isn't the joy of the OSS model, that if this were truely a problem, a group of users (presumable corperations interested in the viability of thier 2.4 kernel) could get together to create and maintain a patch for the 2.4 kernel that would back port more then just the critical updates from 2.6? I thought that the whole point of having an open model was to allow everyone to mess with the code to make it fit their needs. I know there is always a fear of forking, and that someone will bring up the issue, but there are many patches some like the -ac patch even get posted on kernel.org.
There has alwasy been a gap between the needs of buisness for stable and realiable software and the desire of enthusiests for the latest and greatest. as Linux continues to gain share in diverse markets, I antisipate that the number of patches will likewize increase, making a kernel that can meet the needs of several different types of users.
JFMILLER
Strive to make your client happy, not necessarly give them what they ask for
The kernel maintainers have been clear on their reasons *not* accepting xfs into linus's tree (see prior posts in this thread). Considering that so many of the people who clamor for xfs (imx) are kids who're principally attracted to it's rep for high performance, yet have no concept of the tradeoffs delineated above -- well I can see why it's not being accepted into mainline. I'm sure if SGI actually cleans up the interface it'll go in but who knows if _that_ will ever happen.
Marcello on XFS:
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
it's like 2.0 and 2.2
they've been worked on up to airly recently.. well.. 2.2 anyways.. but they were being worked on way past their shelf life, namely due to the fact that there are people with older machines that dont need usb.. or the latest hardxware drivers because someone with a 486 is less likely going to need support for a ATI radeon 9000
same mentality for 2.4...
there's going to be people with computers (like me) that arent going to be the latest bit of technology and wont be upgraded any time soon..
so keep working on the 2.4 kernel just keeping basic features in sync with 2.6 (vulnerabilities that need patching, etc)
What release date?
2.6 is on feature freeze as it should be. But to end the entire kernel series forcing an upgrade to a new kernel that doesn't exist yet? How can you tell me that's not premature?
I wish someone on the kernel team would consider this issue from a user's perspective. Sure, I understand their objections to binary drivers on a moral and a support-headache perspective, but what options do the users have?
nVidia: binary-only drivers, but mostly stable
ATI: binary-only drivers, unstable and out of date
Everybody else: my favorite game is "Unreal Tournament 2003:The Slideshow"
**turns beet red and tries to change the subject**
But he should have said "reality == C|Net" then he wouldn't have made the mistake, or it would give a compilation error.
Wrong again. Depending on the context the statement may have produced a runtime logic error, but it would compile just fine. Otherwise you could never do assignments. Perheps you shoudl stop digging now? :)
I sympathize with the SGI developers, about the inclusion of the xfs filesystem into the kernel. The reasoning for this is because there is a perception that something that is not included into the main kernel branch is unstable, which is absolutely wrong. So it is beneficial for a developers to have their module included into the branch, so it can be considered a proper part of the kernel. I think this is a major weakness to how the kernel releasing structure it set up.
Honestly, I would like to have this releasing structure changed. For example, filesystems don't need to be inside of the kernel branch, only the virtual file system. Let the distributions take care of putting all of the different filesystems into their kernel branch. The kernel branch should be the base point of all the other distribution branches. If you want ext2 in your kernel then go to the ext2 guys and grab the patch and apply to the kernel, no more inclusion. I have already heard people state that patching should not be done by a regular user, which is correct; but that is why you have distributions that have there kernel branches with all of the filesystems they think should be included. No more arguments why one module is inside of the kernel branch and the other isn't.
Linus and his maintainers can now only worry about the main system and let everyone else deal with there on patches. If your patch needs a change to the kernel branch then you talk to Linus and his maintainers. Which they decide if it is a good idea, or if you need to change something in your code. This would lower the amount of releases of the main kernel branch, since there is a smaller amount code that can be changed. Also the releases can be base on if a interface to the main system has been changed which effects the other patches, or just a fix to the internal code. This can lead to easier maintenance of other patches. The more code that can be taken out and put into there out tree the better. Kinda like having a hierarchy of trees.
This can lead to cool pseudo linux distributions where one can say I have xx branch of the kernel. This is already happening like mm-sources, redhat-sources, etc; But taking out the favoritism of the main kernel developers. This could also solve a problem with the size of the kernel source tree in the future when there is tons of different drivers,filesystem,etc.
This is just an example of what it could be like, and I am sure there is more that has to be look at; but think this approach has some credits.
Nothing more, For me to say; About my life, A life of dreams....
It may happen quite quickly (I remember having the option to use either a rock-solid 2.2 or a "not tested as thoroughly" 2.4) some time ago.
First, because I use parenthetical expressions a lot myself (and I always double check them for this), remove the parenthetical expression from your statement and what are you left with?
It may happen quite quickly some time ago.
Second, Mandrake 9.2 has a contributed 2.6.0testXX kernel, but you have to get it from ftp. It's on the discs if you BUY them, but if you leech--er, download the isos like I did, you'll have to hit an ftp server for them. Of course, if you configure your urpmi sources properly, you can just select the appropriate kernel from the Mandrake Control Panel software installation applet (whatever the fuck it's called).
Like what I said? You might like my music
Well noone ever stoped working on Apache 1.x and look at all the people that have switched to 2.x... Oh wait, almost noone has switched to 2.x yet because people just kept working on 1.x. noone has even bothered to port most of the modules to 2.x _correctly_ yet.
And so it will be with Linux 2.6.x
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
I have a really old Microsoft Intellimouse pro. .. bla bla bla! :(
yeah, yeah, yeah, microsoft this
But I like this mouse so much that I am willing to do anything to extend it's life. Even if I have to do a frankenstein and replace the mouses organs at some point
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
Now, this comment is mildly off topic, but the article in question does show up a problem with the current structure of the Linux kernel, namely that drivers (including filesystem drivers) are closely intertwined with the workings of the kernel at a source level.
Currently, there is no way that you can have a totally stable kernel and yet have device drivers and filesystems develop independently. To do this, Linux would need at the very least a standardised device driver and filesystem API or better yet, a standardised ABI which doesn't change for the lifetime of a major revision.
All the major commercial UNIX's I know of have a standard ABI for their drivers, as do Windows. This is why you can still get hardware developers who maintain and release versions of device drivers for old releases of kernels for those operating systems for new hardware, because they can. I'd like to see someone try doing that for the current crop of Linux kernels.. oh yes, which version and sub-version from who's source tree was that for?
Not having a standard ABI for drivers helps cause a support hell, not only for end users, but as demonstrated here, the kernel maintainers as well.
Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
How legitimate a gripe this is really depends on what people think they'll be missing. Linux kernel modules mean that slower updates to the kernel don't necessarily mean anyone will be left out in the cold. Things that are currently supported via kernel modules may still be supported and updated by whoever maintains those modules, it's just that those updates may not make it into Marcelo's (Linus's) kernel. Whether or not those 2.4-based modules get written and/or updated is somewhat independent of the issue of whether or not they get bundled into an official new 2.4 update past 2.4.25.
Of course, if they're worried about missing out on new scheduler or vm features, or other more central kernel functionality... well, that's what new kernel versions are for.
this is like MS saying that we're not developing any new features for Win 98 two months before Win 2000 is released
Bull, it is! If MS did this, people would be in an UPROAR about forced upgrades. Face it, most Slashdotters EXPECT Microsoft to provide new features but they defend Linux stopping development on their stable product before the next version is even released.
People who want these features can use one of various patchsets floating around. (Con Kolivas for desktop responsiveness, various others for grsecurity, xfs etc.) It was ever thus (I remember when 2.2.x-acy had a following approaching that of vanilla 2.2.x.
Besides which, most users will get their kernel upgrades from their distribution's updates package system, and except for debian which sticks closely to Linus' kernels most distros include well-tested versions of most of the patches that have been backported anyway. Certainly they almost all have xfs.
This is a lame story - 'new' features have very rarely gone into stable branches; occasionally drivers get merged when they touch very little else in the kernel (i2o in 2.2, Cyclades in 2.4) but no really new big chunks.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Alright...so they don't want relatively new and untested code...but they want new features. This so sounds like something Dilbert would get as a request, doesn't it?
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
Here's how You should understand this issue:
linux-2.4.0.tar.gz is 24378762 bytes
linux-2.4.23.tar.gz is 37010062 bytes.
So you can expect 2.4.25 etc. won't go over 40 megs compressed. That's what a "stable" kernel development stands for.
(BTW it is kind of weird thing that a stable kernel has grown so much)
zsnes huh? you nailed it!!! Honestly, it was either that or snes9x that was the first program I wanted to use a joystick for.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
We've run our MMOG's on Linux (Red Hat flavor) for years now (migrated away from IRIX when we use to run on Challenge/Origin 2000s). Linux is amazingly stable, but it took awhile for 2.4 to get that way. It wasn't "out of the box". We need our OS to be up... well always. Five 9s is nice. And Linux goes the distance. Failures tend to be our fault, not its.
On the other hand we also had a heavy-load database running on NT for 3 years non-stop. It came to a stop only when we decided to shut it down to get a clean slate on something (an optional thing). But the fact it had run for 3 years without a glitch was amazing too. Lots of people doubt NT can do that under any serious production stress, but I can attest that it can.
We are anxiously awaiting 2.6 because the scheduling problems in 2.4 show their ugly head very obviously for us. We get by for now, but can already see how 2.6 will make life better. But 2.6.1 will probably be the first we try unless we hear amazing success stories.
David Whatley
I'm a technical PHB. I started working as a System Admin back on SCO (the original) Xenix in the late 80's. I'm still fairly technical and hands on, but now, at 36, I manage a team and make purchasing decisions, etc., as well.
This is simply WAY WAY WAY too early to talk about stagnating the 2.4 kernel. It feeds directly into the "open source is really a bunch of geeks who are far more interested in shiny new baubles than core business requirements!"
2.6 isn't out yet. And it's not known when it will stabilize (my definition of stable is when revs "live" for more than 30 days).
It's quite possible that a 'stable' 2.6 won't be out for a year. Then it needs to be tested, and a migration plan (since this is NOT a 'build and drop in' kernel) put into place, and that tested.
Easily 18 months or more -- and that's assuming that as soon as the kernel stabilizes, it becomes a company priority to migrate.
Again, MS loves to tout "with open source, you have to build your business around your solution, rather than building your solution around your business."
Big companies don't want to be on this treadmill, they don't want to develop and maintain their own kernel team and kernel tree -- they want stuff that WORKS. And having your own dev organization is a fast way to spend more money than buying someone else's solution.
Hopefully this won't come to pass. But sadly, the fuel's been added to the fire.
Steve
not too long ago I loaded SuSE 8.1 pro on a new 'puter; 8.1 is a release about a year or so old and definately a 2.4 series kernal. I installed the XFS filesystem, primarily to spite SCO, but was plesantly surprised with its performance, its much faster than the reiserFS i had previously used.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Slow news day at ZDNet? This is such a non issue, it's silly. Of course 2.4 users will not be "left out in the cold". There will be plenty of time to feel out the 2.6 kernel before 2.4 is abandoned completely.
Let's get real people... Even the 2.2 kernel was last updated in March. And just because the fine people at kernel.org won't make any significant changes to 2.4, nothing is stopping any number of 3rd party sources from doing so.
You know I believe I remember Alan Cox adding new drivers to the 2.0 series after 2.2 was released. There was a while when you didn't want to touch 2.2 because it wasn't quite there. It wasn't nowhere as bad as 2.4. I think that one was released before it was golden. I can't comment on anything prior to 2.0 though. My first kernel was a 2.0.20 something.
In Republican America phones tap you.
I disagree, in this case.
2.6 is getting more positive reports and more good buzz on lkml than I have ever seen for a 2.x stable series. There can be no comparison to 2.4's rocky childhood, for example.
I think 2.6 is going to be the smoothest early stable series yet, and that 2.4 is going to be looked back upon as a relative stinker. The subtext in Marcello's posts about 2.4 imply that he thinks the same.
Sometimes I wonder if the difference between 2.4 and 2.6 is the change in the development maintainer's (Linus') source control model -- that is to say, he finally started using one (bitkeeper).
Back in the day, when everyone was excited for the 2.4 kernels to come out, I was waiting very eagerly. You see, I had just purchased a quad-processer machine, and 2.4 was supposed to scale much better than the 2.2 series. Now, as should be imagined, this wasn't a "toy" or "testing" machine, it was a production database server that the entire company depended on.
When 2.4.1 came out, I downloaded it, compiled it, and installed it on the production machine. It purred along beautifully. I completely forgot about it.
Some time later, the o(1) scheduler patches came out, so I downloaded what was the then-current version, 2.4.17. Here's where it gets good: The database server with the 2.4.1 kernel was still running.
No, I don't mean that I was just still using it. I mean that it was *still running*. It had never been shut down, crashed, or had a reboot for any reason.
Based on that experience, I'm not terribly worried about using the 2.6 kernels.
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
Is to try out 2.6.0-test11 which is the latest at this point in time.
Correction ATI:Open Source drivers acctually work. Provide OSS developers with documentation.
"We Don't Need No Truthless Heros!" - Project 86
I guess we'll have to wait another four years before we have close to decent support for cheap file backup.
When I have backed things up onto CDROM, I have done as follows (these steps could be abridged/changed/etc.-- they are the way they are because it made it easy for me to organize the material and maintain the solution):
1) Copy files into a staging folder (not necessary, but makes them easier to organize, if you have the space). I would often do this using smbtar, tar, etc. to copy and archive certain directories. The relavent backups would then be tar archives (compressed).
2) I would make an ISO image and pipe that to cdrecord.
This would all be scheduled by Cron. It is not perfect, but then it took me less than 1/2 hour to set up one day for a network of 5 or so systems.
Free tools, 1/2 hour setup time (a little shell scripting). Cheap hardware and media. I call that an inexpensive backup. Do you have a problem with this solution?
BTW-- anyone have an answer for this one-- if you have a tar archive and you append another file onto the end with the same name, is there a way you can choose which file you can extract from the archive? Any tools out there?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
In any case, what he probably meant was "reality == (C|Net)". "==" has higher precedence than "|".
I have a couple of servers with AIC7xxx SCSI RAID arrays. One of them gets a mysterious timing problem which leads to a kernel panic from not being able to mount the root filesystem. It was supposed to be fixed in 2.6.0test11, but it ain't. 2.4.x works fine on that machine.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Blimey, I stand (fully) corrected!
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
In any case, what he probably meant was "reality == (C|Net)". "==" has higher precedence than "|".
Well, I was side-stepping the whole | issue. I mean if you count | as the special character most languages count it as then you can't have it as part of a variable name in the first place, now can you?
The kernel is there to let all these spiffy things talk to the hardware. Code to shove a lot of bits as fast as possible out to the video hardware belongs as a kernel module, but things that define what these bits are are done elsewhere.
IMHO the previous poster has got confused about the difference between the kernel and applications. Gcc is not a linux thing, It is an application I can run in windows, while ideally all the applications mentioned in the above post should compile and run on a mac, and be happy to do things via the mach kernel.
These projects are the future of Linux, they are novel ideas that will allow Linux to leap-frog its non-free competitors on the desktop.Forget the competitive ideas, we just want something that is good. Things that will only run on linux are a disadvantage, not an advantage - if we ignore being able to run on multiple platforms we run into problems like the emacs split (due to the developer adding support for X windows, which was seen a bad idea by one person, since hurd did not support X and the main mission was hurd).