Linux 2.6.9 Released

Any Reasons to get it? by opweirdisntit · 2004-10-18 16:15 · Score: 1

Althout i may be thrillied that they released a 2.6.9 kernel, i dont see any reason to run off and update me 2.6.8 kernel with this one. Am i missing something but i dont see any major improvments (i just glanced at the notes - :) )

Re:Any Reasons to get it? by Gherald · 2004-10-18 16:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

2.6.8 had some problems with tcp connections being broken, I hope they fixed that.

And I need kernel >= 2.6.8 for forcedeth gigabit support...

And tere are always little improvements... as soon as your distro packages 2.6.9 it makes since to upgrade but since there's no hurry just put in in your bootloader and wait till next reboot to load it....

--
The unofficial /. digest
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by floamy · 2004-10-18 16:26 · Score: 5, Informative

The notes you just glanced at only show the minor changes between 2.6.9-rc4 and 2.6.9. There were a lot of changes between 2.6.8[.1] and the 2.6.9 release.
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by Fweeky · 2004-10-18 16:32 · Score: 4, Informative

There are a bunch of important looking fixes for ppc64 and amd64, a fix for a swapd lockup, fixes for xfs and ext3.. most people should probably upgrade fairly quickly, I'd say.
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by richie2000 · 2004-10-18 19:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

since there's no hurry just put in in your bootloader and wait till next reboot to load it....
I do that too. But once in a while something goes wrong and since it was ages since I updated the kernel and put it in like a grub timebomb, I've forgotten that I did it. Fun and games.

--
Money for nothing, pix for free
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 22:28 · Score: 0

Here we go again. I thought the 2.6.x series were the STABLE kernels. You know, how like 2.4.x was supposed to be the STABLE kernel, then they did crap like rip out the VM manager.
If you want to screw around, make a 2.7 branch and play there. PLEASE keep STABLE as STABLE.
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by oojah · 2004-10-18 23:20 · Score: 1

> > since there's no hurry just put in in your bootloader and
> > wait till next reboot to load it....

> I do that too. But once in a while something goes wrong and since
> it was ages since I updated the kernel and put it in like a grub
> timebomb, I've forgotten that I did it. Fun and games.

I do the same, but always make sure that I have at least one kernel available that I know works. This was if your new kernel goes wrong you can always get back to your system easily.

Cheers,

Roger

--
Do you have any better hostages?
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by Muad'Dave · 2004-10-19 00:09 · Score: 1

Could you please post a few links to bug reports of TCP connection hangs? I'm seeing a strange SCP/SSH issue, and I'd like to make sure my issue has already been reported. Thanks!

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by dubious9 · 2004-10-19 00:48 · Score: 2, Informative

I too have had many problems with the 2.6 kernel series and 2.6 and 2.8 ssh versions, specifically pertaining to samba authentication, pam modules, and X forwarding, amoungst other inconsistencies. Not always problems with kernel or openssh per se, but it's the little stuff that gets you.

If you'd like some help head over to ##linux (yes, that's two pound signs) at freenode.net irc and ask me (same nick), or anybody. We tend to be very helpfull, and try to keep the "google that" and "RTFM" to a minimum (with some exceptions ;)) unless it's stuff that we can't ourselves can't answer.

IRC is the best linux help out there as far as I'm concerned. E-mail lists and forum sites aren't very condusive for troubleshooting because of their non-realtime nature. Stop by.

--
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by stromthurman · 2004-10-19 00:54 · Score: 2, Informative

You might want to read this discussion. It seems the old way of doing things, using even sub-versions for stable and odd for testing is no longer going to be done. So, a 2.7 kernel is not going to happen for quite some time.

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this margin is too small to contain.
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by Gherald · 2004-10-19 03:42 · Score: 1

Well here's a start:

I'm not too knowlegeable about it, I just know it exists and can be irritating.

--
The unofficial /. digest
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-19 04:45 · Score: 0

So what that really says is "no linux kernel can be trusted" anymore. Your shiny new 2.6.10 may cause corruption and that's "just too bad". Sigh.
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by superpulpsicle · 2004-10-19 08:36 · Score: 1

Anyone have any GOOD instructions to go from a 2.4 kernel to a 2.6?
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by stromthurman · 2004-10-20 02:06 · Score: 1

Seems that way. I'm not too terribly thrilled with the idea. While any branch of the kernel may have bugs, at least I could immediately tell which branches were working towards stability versus which branches were developing experimental stuff.

--
I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this margin is too small to contain.
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by Vlad_the_Inhaler · 2004-10-20 06:47 · Score: 1

Sticking my neck out, it is not possible to issue good instructions without knowing what you are running now. Not the kernel itself but stuff like GCC, modutils, whatever. If they are recent enough then it is compile and load, if not then my advice would to be to upgrade them first.

--
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by dpp · 2004-10-20 11:34 · Score: 1

There's a thread on the Gentoo forums about this. Apparently it is to do with TCP/IP window resizing. There's also a LWN article.

--
This post is strictly my own opinion and not necessarily that of my employer.
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by Muad'Dave · 2004-10-21 00:45 · Score: 1

Thank you! That sounds exactly like what I'm experiencing!

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by nicolas.e · 2004-10-21 09:10 · Score: 1

Jevgvat vg unf jnfgrq lbhe gvzr.
Re:Any Reasons to get it? by JFitzsimmons · 2004-10-22 02:10 · Score: 1

Copy over your old 2.4 .config to the new 2.6 source directory and run make oldconfig. Has always worked for me. Good luck.

--
Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master. -Anonymous

No go under Windows XP Sp2 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 16:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Windows XP firewall says the download is not safe. Better stay away people, and wait until they distribute those on free CDs.

Re:No go under Windows XP Sp2 by BladeMelbourne · 2004-10-18 18:14 · Score: 1

Actually it's not the Windows firewall - it's changes to MSIE security that came with XP SP2, in relation to downloading files.

The file downloads fine thru Mozilla 1.7.3 on WinXP SP2 :-)

I'm going to compile this after work tonight with GCC 3.4 - wish me luck ;-)

Selecting all my settings again in make menuconfig is going to take a while :-| I might see if I can use the old .config

mv /usr/bin/gcc /usr/bin/gcc.old
ln -s /usr/bin/gcc34 /usr/bin/gcc
Re:No go under Windows XP Sp2 by doctormetal · 2004-10-18 18:24 · Score: 5, Informative

I>I'm going to compile this after work tonight with GCC 3.4 - wish me luck ;-)

Selecting all my settings again in make menuconfig is going to take a while :-| I might see if I can use the old .config

ever heard of make oldconfig? It creates a new .config based on your old one.
Re:No go under Windows XP Sp2 by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 18:40 · Score: 0

Thanks for the tip - compiling kernels is new to me (only compiled 2.6.8.1 a few times).
Re:No go under Windows XP Sp2 by anarxia · 2004-10-19 00:41 · Score: 2, Informative

2.6 build automatically picks up your running kernel config (from /boot/config-2.6.x) so you don't have to configure everything.

I wonder... by brilinux · 2004-10-18 16:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

I have been upgrading kernels ever two or so sub release (I am currently running 2.6.8.1). But it that really necessary? It seems that there is much more upgrading than there needs to be. Obviously, some people will need the new kernel, but it seems that often, once the kernel works well for my hardware, why should I keep upgrading? Any thoughts? I am probably overlooking something obvious.

Re:I wonder... by Stevyn · 2004-10-18 16:44 · Score: 5, Funny

I'm a gentoo user. I've compiled a new kernel twice this week. I'm not joking. 2.6.8-r9 and 2.6.8-r10.

I don't need this new kernel. It's an obsession. we need a Linux Users Anonymous
Re:I wonder... by dtfinch · 2004-10-18 16:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

But it that really necessary?

Not at all, but 2.6.8 is generally not as stable as say, 2.4.27. If you do something out of the ordinary or pull the plug at random times you may feel the effects of one of the many trickier bugs or misfeatures that may be fixed in newer versions.
Re:I wonder... by adamjaskie · 2004-10-18 16:52 · Score: 1

If I haven't compiled one in a while, I check out kernel.org to see if a new one is out. If it's less than a month since I last upgraded, or if there are RC's out for the next version out, I wait a bit more. I am running 2.8.1 now, and if I get un-lazy enough, the timing is far enough apart that I would be willing to compile 2.6.9, but I probably won't get around to it until 2.6.10 RC1 is out, at which point I will decide it is better to just wait for 2.6.10 proper.

--
/usr/games/fortune
Re:I wonder... by Feztaa · 2004-10-18 17:04 · Score: 2, Funny

I am running 2.8.1 now

Are you from the mysterious future? What's it like there?
Re:I wonder... by Kris_J · 2004-10-18 17:19 · Score: 1

Are you from the mysterious future? What's it like there?
No comment.
Re:I wonder... by HawkingMattress · 2004-10-18 18:57 · Score: 5, Funny

No, gentoo now shifts version numbers to make sure you're not out of date when you finished compiling.
Re:I wonder... by A+beautiful+mind · 2004-10-18 19:59 · Score: 0

...talking about kernel.org, sometimes its slow catching up with the new kernel versions, as of almost 10 hours after the release of 2.6.9, the front page of kernel.org still shows the 2.6.8.1 tree.

Ah well, this has been pointed out @ the linux kernel mailing list aswell, but then anyway if you are a hardcore linux user, you're reading lkml or slashdot anyway to keep up with the latest happenings ;)

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 21:03 · Score: 0

>I'm a gentoo user.
^^^^^^
>I've compiled a new kernel twice this week.
Well,DUH!!!
Re:I wonder... by TeknoHog · 2004-10-18 22:18 · Score: 1

No, gentoo now shifts version numbers to make sure you're not out of date when you finished compiling.
While users of all other distros somehow magically get the binaries without anyone ever spending compiler time on them.

--
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
Re:I wonder... by buttahead · 2004-10-18 23:40 · Score: 1

In the future, you will have bigger numbers.
Re:I wonder... by adamjaskie · 2004-10-19 02:06 · Score: 1

2.8.1 introduced native 3d acceleration support for my Radeon 9700 pro! Finally ATI cards are beginning to be decent under Linux.

--
/usr/games/fortune
Re:I wonder... by duggy_92127 · 2004-10-19 05:56 · Score: 1

we need a Linux Users Anonymous

That already exists.
Doug
Re:I wonder... by Flunitrazepam · 2004-10-19 05:58 · Score: 1

I for one welcome our new Gentoo time traveling overlords

--
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
Re:I wonder... by HoldmyCauls · 2004-10-19 08:23 · Score: 1

I'm wondering why you're even bothering to ask other people for their opinion... you said it yourself, it works for your hardware. Do you download the shiny new version of any other software you run whenever it comes out? I don't mean this offensively, but you've already answered the question you pose, and it seems you just need to learn to think rationally about your needs and to have faith in your own decisions. I upgrade only when I read something from the changelog that I'd like to see working (better) (this means downloading every kernel (when I have the chance) since I want better ACPI and wireless support, among other things).

Is there something you're anticipating will change in an upcoming kernel? A quick grep through the changelog should tell you if you need it or not. Don't search ACPI, for instance, since there will be hundreds of minor changes; be more specific than that.

--
Emacs: for people who just never know when to :q!

megaraid 2.20.4: fix a data corruption bug by dtfinch · 2004-10-18 16:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

Looks important enough for me.

Torrent? by schnits0r · 2004-10-18 16:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Does somebody have a torrent of this yet? If they do, coudl they posta link so we can slashdot it and downlaod it faster...wait, that sounded weird.

--

-------
Support Indy Music. Buy

Re:Torrent? by WhatAmIDoingHere · 2004-10-18 16:42 · Score: 1, Interesting

If you /. the tracker, it doesn't help the torrent any. You'd need a multitracker solution.

--
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Re:Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 17:16 · Score: 0

Excuse me?
Re:Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 20:51 · Score: 3, Informative

Bittorrent is only really useful if the initial distributor has very limited bandwidth and/or a poor mirroring system. Neither is true for kernel.org, so just download it from ftp..kernel.org and be happy, no need for a torrent.
Re:Torrent? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 20:56 · Score: 0

If you /. the tracker, it doesn't help the torrent any

Any what? Bananas? Elephants?
Re:Torrent? by yahwotqa · 2004-10-20 12:24 · Score: 1

This looks like drunk /. comment. An aspiring member of the new Linux Alcoholics Anonymous?

Does the nvidia kernel module work? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 17:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

Anybody know?... anybody?

Re:Does the nvidia kernel module work? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 17:43 · Score: 5, Informative

you have to peruse the nvidia linux forum for the fix. I forget what it was exactly, but you have to put a #include in some kernel file, recompile the kernel, reboot, and then the nvidia installer will work.

the real fix will require nvidia to release an update for their driver.

Buggy of Bug Free by gmhowell · 2004-10-18 18:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

Lacking 'safe' vs. 'devel' kernel branches, what category does this point release fall into?

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon

Re:Buggy of Bug Free by A+beautiful+mind · 2004-10-18 19:51 · Score: 0

I would say its pretty safe to consider it stable...there was quite a big gap between 2.6.8.1 and 2.6.9, lots of bugfixes and release candidates...
Linus considers the 2.6 series a stable branch which can take some development, nothing too radical or experimental though. 2.7 will be kept for the more radical ideas. 2.4 is getting slowly outdated, although some vouce for it's stability, but personally i prefer the 2.6 tree because although its actively developed and there are new releases every once a while, i did not encounter any stability problems yet. My system being quite average, it's not too far fetched to say that for the average joe tux, 2.6 is a stable choice.

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Re:Buggy of Bug Free by Ibn+al-Hazardous · 2004-10-18 22:14 · Score: 1

We don't lack 'safe' vs 'devel' branches. We have the mm-tree and the linus-tree.

Now, the tricky part may be to determine which is what. But judging from the 2.4-situation - where the ac-tree was 'safe', and the linus-tree was 'devel'; I think either the linus-tree is 'devel' this time too, or Linus is getting rusty. ;)

--
Yes, I am a biological organism. All rumors to the contrary are just that, rumors.

Devel, pretty much... by ReKleSS · 2004-10-18 20:06 · Score: 1

A while ago, it was mentioned that 2.6 is now basically a devel branch. The stabilisation of the kernel has been left up to the distributions. That said, I consider it to be fine to use as long as you're not using a production system that requires excellent stability.
-ReK

--
md5sum -c reality.md5 reality: FAILED md5sum: WARNING: 1 of 1 computed checksum did NOT match

Re:Devel, pretty much... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 21:50 · Score: 0

A while ago, it was mentioned that 2.6 is now basically a devel branch. The stabilisation of the kernel has been left up to the distributions. That said, I consider it to be fine to use as long as you're not using a production system that requires excellent stability.
This is great news for commercial UNIX vendors, because what this means is that if you now want a "stable" Linux kernel to use in a production environment you have more reason to buy Red Hat Expensive^WEnterprise Linux to get the vendor stability fixes.
I tried a 2.6 kernel on my Slackware box at home a couple of months ago. The machine became really unresponsive and felt much slower. This won't do on a desktop box. I downgraded to a 2.4.x kernel (2.4.26 IIRC) and everything was fine again. Maybe it's the age of my machine? It's an Athlon XP2000+. However, I don't consider that to be a particularly slow box, and I don't want to have to upgrade my CPU every 6 months to keep up with kernels.
Re:Devel, pretty much... by Skjellifetti · 2004-10-20 01:55 · Score: 1

I tried a 2.6 kernel on my Slackware box at home a couple of months ago. The machine became really unresponsive and felt much slower. This won't do on a desktop box.

I've noticed this too. I've got 2xPIII@1Ghz w/ 1GB Ram and sometimes I can't even get the box to recognize that I've moved the mouse when the box has a low load avg and isn't using much memory. The 2.4 kernels don't have this problem. IIRC, the 2.6 series scheduler has a check for CPU hogs. But I suspect that it is confusing the X Application that is really the hog with the X Window System itself.

--
FreeSpeech.org
Re:Devel, pretty much... by Zork+the+Almighty · 2004-10-20 10:39 · Score: 1

Are you renicing X ? I know this was typically done to increase the responsiveness of 2.4 systems, but it shouldn't be done on 2.6.

--

In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Re:Devel, pretty much... by Taladar · 2004-10-21 01:13 · Score: 1

I ran 2.5.70-bk12 or some similar version for over a year on my semi-production (if it does not work I do not have internet) internet-router/file-server/irc-bot-server/console -irc-client/console-icq-client/...-server at home for over a year. The only time I was forced to reboot was a power outage. Linux is not exactly unstable even in the development branch as long as you stay away from modules marked as "Experimental" or "Dangerous".

--
Linux is not Windows

Convincing by seann · 2004-10-18 20:07 · Score: 0, Offtopic

How do you convince the corporate big wigs that Linux is free, despite what SCO says?

--
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.

Re:Convincing by A+beautiful+mind · 2004-10-18 21:20 · Score: 0

Linux doesnt exists. What doesn't exist is free. Therefore linux is free.

Thanks for the logic SCO, btw ;))

--
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Re:Convincing by seann · 2004-10-19 04:46 · Score: 0, Offtopic

how the fuck is that off topic, jesus christ tittyfuck.

--
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Re:Convincing by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-19 17:47 · Score: 0

Mommy, mommy! Look, a troll!

inotify by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-18 21:25 · Score: 0

Is inotify ready for the mainline kernel yet?

I couldn't find a trace of it in the changelog.

Appearently it already got vendor-support, and is essential to the 'desktop revolution' happening at the moment ;)

Does SATA work? by julie-h · 2004-10-18 22:42 · Score: 1

Have anyone tried SATA discs with the Linux kernel lately?

I heard it should be in progress.

Re:Does SATA work? by stoborrobots · 2004-10-18 23:43 · Score: 1

I've only tested it briefly, but it WFM with Fedora Core 2...

I pre-tested a box for a friend, and he's using SATA. He hasn't complained yet (after telling me that Redhat 9 didn't install due to SATA issues. Installed FC2, now no complaints.)

So it think it's safe to say that it's well and truely "in progress"...

--
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
Re:Does SATA work? by AnyLoveIsGoodLove · 2004-10-19 01:56 · Score: 1

It worked for me under Fedora Core 2 (although my ATI card did not, 9600 xt)
also, SATA worked under unbunto (sp) distro. Actually like that desktop distro...

I have to admit I did not kick the tires too hard by running oracle or anything else like that.

SPP

--
"It's technical in a psychometric kind a way" -- C. Parish
Re:Does SATA work? by sr180 · 2004-10-19 13:11 · Score: 1

We've been thrashing it out on a test box. Only had one problem and I'm not sure whether or not is SATA related.. The mount magically appeared full. I couldnt anything that was taking up all the space. A reboot and its all magically back to normal. And were talking about 35gb suddenly going missing...
Apart from that, everything on the SATA drive has been fine.

--
In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
Re:Does SATA work? by nukem996 · 2004-10-19 15:08 · Score: 1

Im currently writing this on my machine with a Gentoo 2.6.9 kernel(had 2.6.9-rc2 on) with an SATA drive. It works great!!! Much much faster then any IDE drive. Ive had no problems with it. To enable SATA you need to do it through SCSI, just enable SCSI and in SCSI low level drivers select your chipset. Incase you wanted to know here are my system specs. System Specs CPU: AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Mobo: Asus A8V SATA Controller: Promise TX4 Soundcard: SB Audigy 2 zs Videocard: NVIDIA FX 5900 Ultra
Re:Does SATA work? by Quinn · 2004-10-20 06:23 · Score: 1

I'm using the sata_promise and libata modules with my Promise SATA150 TX2Plus on 2.6.8.1. Works great with the two SATA drives I have installed (one hot-swapped in a Kingwin enclosure, one fixed in the case.) The PATA (IDE) connection doesn't work AFAIK, but that's not a big deal for me. (And the hardware isn't supposed to work with optical drives, which is a bigger deal, but not the fault of Linux.)

--
#19845

Stable vs. Development by Karma+Farmer · 2004-10-18 23:32 · Score: 1

Can someone who understands the Kernel numbering scheme explain it to me?

Is 2.4.x the stable branch and 2.6.x the development branch? Or is 2.6 stable, and there's already a 2.7.x development branch? Or how does that work?

And are all kernel modules guaranteed to maintain strict binary compatibility across all 2.4 releases, or alternatively across all 2.6 releases? Or is it source compatibility only? Or, is it even that?

Re:Stable vs. Development by eelke_klein · 2004-10-18 23:38 · Score: 2, Informative

There are no stable and development branches anymore. For kernel 2.4 the development branche was 2.5 but there will be no 2.7 development branch for 2.6
Re:Stable vs. Development by turgid · 2004-10-18 23:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

And are all kernel modules guaranteed to maintain strict binary compatibility across all 2.4 releases, or alternatively across all 2.6 releases? Or is it source compatibility only? Or, is it even that?
No. Even different compiles of the same kernel can be incompatible as far as modules are concerned. It depends on the compiler (and version) you use, the kernel and patches and the configure options. When you compile yourself a new kernel, you should rebuild and reinstall all your modules. You will also have to "recompile" closed-source binary drivers. There come with an open-source "shim" layer to interface with the kernel c.f. nVidia drivers. You then need to go into /etc and frob with the scripts that load the modules at boot time.
The rationale for this design decision was to force vendors to either provide GPL'd drivers for their hardware or at least to open the specs. so that volunteers could implement them themsleves. This has been largely successful, but there are a number of significant instances where this has been a problem, for example accelerated 3D graphics drivers. nVidia has been providing binary modules with a shim for years now, and recently ATI has started doing the same. There are various reasons why in the "real world" drivers can not be open-sourced and specs. can not be divulged. Sadly, we do not live in a GNU utopia.
So, for idealogical reasons, we have this dreadful system of driver modules in Linux.
Please note, I'm actually quite a Linux fan. I've been using it exxclusively at home since 1996 (Slackware all the way). I just think it's maybe time for Linux to grow up and take a leaf out of Solaris' book, for example, and to provide a _stable_ (i.e. unchanging between kernel minor versions at least) binary interface for device drivers and other kernel modules. This would make my life a lot easier and cut down on the recompiles.
Sadly, I fear the ideology might get in the way...

--
Stick Men
Re:Stable vs. Development by dubious9 · 2004-10-19 00:59 · Score: 1

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Linus say that they didn't really need a 2.7 series yet? My feeling was that they didn't plan on anything revolutionary that would warrant branching, and Linus thought the way 2.6 was being handled was going well. Maybe he just doesn't want to hand over the reigns to Andrew Morton (the "official" 2.6 maintainer, and proprieter of the infamous mm patches).

I still don't know how I feel about having to have a kernel called 2.6.5-1.358.8kstacks (redhat with nvidia modifications, and yes I know they fixed that) instead of 2.7.1 or whatever. It just doesn't give me that nice and fuzzy stable feeling that the 2.4.20+ series had. I want to know my 2.6.x under redhat will perform the same at a 2.6.x under SuSE or slack or gentoo or ubunto or...

Linus can I please have my developement series back?

--
Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Re:Stable vs. Development by Trevoke · 2004-10-19 01:28 · Score: 0

I may be completely wrong on this, but my understanding is that 2.4.xx is primarily aimed at single-processor machines and 2.6.x primarily aimed at multi-processor machines (smp). Don't take my word for it, I, sadly enough, have no idea where to even start checking this for truth.

--
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
Re:Stable vs. Development by Ogerman · 2004-10-19 07:11 · Score: 1

Sadly, I fear the ideology might get in the way...

It's a difficult trade-off. If there was a stable way for hardware manufacturers to release binary Linux drivers, there would be a whole lot less incentive to give out specs / driver code among those who are half-hearted about supporting OSS. Sure, we might see almost all hardware supported in Linux, but almost none of the drivers would be open source.

I think the current scenario is the best balance for now. Those who play nice with the community have the least work to do and get the best results (and this also saves them a lot of money). Others who refuse to give out specs or code can still support Linux but there is a penalty for not doing things the proper way. In the past, there have been numerous companies that started out doing the binary-only thing and then realized that it just wasn't worth it and subsequently released the sources.

Ultimately, the answer is patent reform, specifically the formal barring of software patents by the USPTO. (they currently exist only in case law, not formal policy) Legal fears are the only reason why any company would be legitimately concerned about releasing detailed hardware specs or driver code. To date, this has really only significantly affected 3D video chipset manufacturers because of the vicious patenting of every nuance of functionality in this field. As a result, there is an absurd amount of cross-licensing and that involves agreements that cannot be easily worked around.

Does Linux still need a better driver model? Probably. (:
Re:Stable vs. Development by Cro+Magnon · 2004-10-19 08:35 · Score: 1

2.6 is SUPPOSED to be the stable branch, but there are no guarantees, especially since the distros are supposedly responsible for stabilizing it. However when/if 2.7 comes out, I'm SURE it will be unstable. You can still count on that.

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Re:Stable vs. Development by Taladar · 2004-10-21 01:18 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly 2.5.0 (the start of the 2.5-development-branch) was identical to 2.4.15. The 2.6 stable branch simple needs some time. The early 2.4 were not exactly stable either.

--
Linux is not Windows

CD Writing..? by maskedbishounen · 2004-10-19 01:20 · Score: 1

I've heard that there were some changes in 2.6.8 to disallow non-root users access to recorders (something related to firmware, was it?).

Could someone comment on this, and has the behavior been changed in 2.6.9?

--
"An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."

Re:CD Writing..? by Confessed+Geek · 2004-10-19 01:59 · Score: 1

With the 2.6.8 kernel and K3b the very nice KDE cdburning suite, non root users could not burn CDs. I think this was fixed with 2.6.8.2 Most distro's put in their own patch also.

I don't know that it affected other cd burning tools.

2.6.9 and Nvidia by zenengnr · 2004-10-19 01:41 · Score: 2, Informative

If you use the propietary nvidia drivers.... Forget it, DONT UPGRADE to 2.6.9 ! Its very very broken :(

Re:2.6.9 and Nvidia by vigilology · 2004-10-19 03:30 · Score: 1

Video, network, or both?
Re:2.6.9 and Nvidia by zenengnr · 2004-10-19 04:17 · Score: 1

The fix for the nvidia "graphics" driver is here http://ngc891.blogdns.net/kernel/patches/NVIDIA-Li nux-x86-1.0-6111-jp1.tar.bz2 but now my vmware modules wont compile!! Apparently the kernel developers have broken things that effect most external modules. Maybe the should fork 2.7 branch before they start breaking shit !!!! Just one asshole's oppinion.
Re:2.6.9 and Nvidia by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-19 13:18 · Score: 0

The 2.6 kernel is still in active development. Stable is a misnomer, really. Use 2.4 if you really want stable. Of course, there's no reason you can't simply go back to a version or two before the break.

NVIDIA DRIVERS DO WORK by tuxq · 2004-10-19 07:03 · Score: 4, Informative

This works ... I grabbed it out of a patch file...
Add this to arch/i386/mm/init.c
On line 43 right below unsigned int __VMALLOC_RESERVE = 128 20;
add this line...
----- Begin -----

EXPORT_SYMBOL(__VMALLOC_RESERVE);

----- End -----

nVidia drivers WILL work. I'm using 2.6.9 and 6111 nvidia drivers right now.

Btw... http://tuxq.com/~tuxq/wtf.jpg ... Why the hell on kernel.org is 2.2.19 the latest stable... lol

Should I try it? by Cro+Magnon · 2004-10-19 08:37 · Score: 0, Troll

Or should I wait for 2.6.9.1.XYZ?

--
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.

Updated UML Support by rimu+guy · 2004-10-19 16:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

UML support was added to the 2.6 kernel a while back (2.5.34 in Sep 2002).

Since then the mainline kernel has lagged behind the latest UML releases on user-mode-linux.sf.net.

Over the 2.6.8 to 2.6.9 timeframe BlaisorBlade (aka Paolo Giarrusso) has worked with Andrew Morton and Jeff Dike to bring the mainline kernel up to date with the latest UML changes. (To the point where the 2.6.9 kernel is more current than the latest 'official' UML release). I would guess this was the biggest, in terms of lines of code, change in 2.6.9. Most of the changes just touched the 'um' architecture though. So changes are pretty isolated from other arch-es.

This may be of interest to you if you run chrooted systems anywhere (UML may be more secure). Or if you are a kernel hacker (so much easier to debug things that run in a user process).

--
(UML-based) VPS Hosting

did it fix the cdrecord bug? by Oxide · 2004-10-20 08:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

2.6.8 introduced a bug in which it makes k3b unable to detect the cd writers as normal user and would require root only.

Has that been fixed in 2.6.9?

Re:did it fix the cdrecord bug? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 16:48 · Score: 0

fixed!

Question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-20 13:45 · Score: 0

What on earth are all of you people talking about with these kernels and Nvidia support? Whenever I update Windows, I only need to reboot my computer, not any of this reconfiguring trash, and I don't have to worry about getting support for any graphics support because Windows runs damn near everything.

Not to be rude or anything, but why exactly do you people use Linux?

~Andrew Jackson

Re:Question by Tukz · 2004-10-21 19:35 · Score: 0

You DO realise that's like asking a cristian why he is reading the bible right?

--
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -

90 comments