Slashdot Mirror


Linus Announces the 2.6.25 Linux Kernel

LinuxWatch writes "'It's been long promised, but there it is now,' began Linux creator Linus Torvalds, announcing the 2.6.25 Linux kernel. He continued, 'special thanks to Ingo who found and fixed a nasty-looking regression that turned out to not be a regression at all, but an old bug that just had not been triggering as reliably before. That said, that was just the last particular regression fix I was holding things up for, and it's not like there weren't a lot of other fixes too, they just didn't end up being the final things that triggered my particular worries.' There were numerous changes in this revision of the OS. The origins of some of those fixes is detailed in Heise's brief history of this kernel update."

181 comments

  1. Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great. Now that the engine is all fixed, can we get a decent looking chassis with working accessories?

    1. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Spleen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry we only make engines and provide them to all the major manufacturers. Please speak with them about the accessory packages.

    2. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      ?

      Are you looking for any new kernel features in particular?

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    3. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by jellomizer · · Score: 0, Troll

      Still it is their responsibility to create an engine that is small and powerful enough to fit in those chasies. However I would suggest that they would put their focus on the X11/XFree developers for faster, better and stable Graphics and Drivers. My history with Linux has the problem not being with the Linux Kernel but with the X Windows System (Xwindows is big and clunky to support features that we don't fully utilize and are fully utilizeing them less and less). I think Linux needs to seporate from its Unix haritage and start moving away from X11 and to something a bit more direct with the frame buffer and video card (Much like how OS X has). Granted X11 has improved in the areas of 3d acceleration and such. But compared to OS X it is lacking

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      It does run a dose, sode tsurikomi goshi-style, through virtualization, e.g. kvm.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    5. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1
      TiVo is pretty. Google is pretty (well, some people think so). Slashdot is pretty.

      Oh right, you meant things like Ubuntu. Complain to them about it.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    6. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by megabyte405 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's not really a Linux thing - look at Debian, you've got two kernels there and effectively the same userspace. Now, if you say you want everyone to stop using X, you'd probably need to implement some sort of direct rendering on the next level up, which is going to be your toolkit stuff (GDK/Cairo/GTK+ or the QT equiv, for most apps) You have now just bisected your GUI application compatibility.

      I'm not sure that X11 is so lacking anymore - the recent versions have been making some nice improvements, and it's still the only thing with that high of compatibility.

      --
      I recognize people by their sigs. Is that a bad thing?
    7. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      I think Linux needs to seporate from its Unix haritage and start moving away from X11 and to something a bit more direct with the frame buffer and video card (Much like how OS X has). Sounds good! Now show me the code.
    8. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My history with Linux has the problem not being with the Linux Kernel but with the X Windows System (Xwindows is big and clunky to support features that we don't fully utilize and are fully utilizeing them less and less). I think Linux needs to seporate from its Unix haritage and start moving away from X11 and to something a bit more direct with the frame buffer and video card (Much like how OS X has). Granted X11 has improved in the areas of 3d acceleration and such. But compared to OS X it is lacking

      And that has precisely what to do with the kernel? X is in user space. If you want to replace X with any other windowing system you like, just port it or write it. And when you've written something as powerful and stable as the X Window System, come back and tell us about it.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    9. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Install Ubuntu. Works great, 3-D effects on the desktop. Does everything that most people need. The only stupid pet tricks are the ones that you need to do to get DVDs to play. Thanks DMCA for that one. Other than that I find it as user friendly as WindowsXP and it seems a lot faster.

      BTW I work with at a software company that writes software that runs under Windows. Even the most pro windows drone here has fallen back to "I am sure Microsoft will fix it soon". Don't bother with the it works just fine for me stories. I can put you in touch with people that have had no problems with 98 and ME and are still using them.

      Vista is a major pain with no gain.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Burz · · Score: 1

      Typical... you omitted the part about the chasis. That is considered an 'accessory' by you?

    11. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, once I get video support, then I've got to get my card reader working, my presentation pointer, and my wifi adapter. After that is all done, it'll be just as functional as XP.

    12. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by bytesex · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm no proponent of the GP, but there *is* a 'third way', if you will - expand the X-library so that a) local connections don't necessarily use a protocol over a pipe, but make function-calls instead, and b) implement widgets in the X-client library much more detailed than the current window- and image-primitives; say a basic set of menu-bar, scrollbar, list, tabs etc. All pluggable in the X-server, of course, so that everybody can still 'skin' their desktop according to their taste. c) Do away - finally - with the silly ways that cut-n-paste and drag-n-drop, in short, IPC and buffers, have been implemented in X. Invent a serious way to communicate between X clients, not a tag-along.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    13. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what you get for buying windows-only hardware. My HP laptop almost completely works, although I'm having trouble with sleep states which is no biggie.

    14. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how do those function calls get to the X server? RPC works over TCP/IP as well, you know.

      The X server is a separate process. To talk to it, some sort of IPC must be established. That currently means a socket, pipe, or shared memory. In Unix, a pipe is about the same thing as a local socket anyway, and shared memory can be used already.

      So I don't understand, what are you proposing?

    15. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      response 1 - yeah, I've got an HP dv5000. It isn't like it is an obscure hardware company.

      response 2 - If my laptop isn't supported by linux (any distro), then linux sucks! (in relation to my laptop). Osx doesn't work on my laptop either - but I can get more of my hardware features functioning in it!

    16. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that has precisely what to do with the kernel? X is in user space. If you want to replace X with any other windowing system you like, just port it or write it. And when you've written something as powerful and stable as the X Window System, come back and tell us about it. Userspace and kernelspace are developer-speak, not something the average user really has to know. Users divide the world in to the operating system and applications, and since X isn't an application it's part of "the system" and goes into one big pile. Paricularly since the line has become very blurred, not only is X in userspace, but drivers are in userspace (all high-level USB drivers, for example) or filesystems (FUSE) and so on. It's fairly valid to point out that often problems with "Linux the system" isn't a problem with "Linux the kernel" but rather everything around. For example, USB support in the kernel is done but there's plenty work left on USB device support...
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    17. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by beav007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If my laptop isn't supported by linux (any distro), then linux sucks!
      Wrong. If your hardware manufacturer doesn't release decent drivers for Linux, the manufacturer sucks*.

      Linux devs are working their asses off in their parents basements, hacking and testing drivers for hardware that they don't have access to the interface specifications for. If things still look a little shakey, just remember to be glad that they work at all, given the hours of work for $0 return.

      When you are done giving thanks, complain to your hardware manufacturer, who does make money from the deal, and does have the full specifications - AND for reasons unknown, have turned down the offer of OSS developers writing the drivers for them, for free .




      *See also: Canon
    18. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by db32 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Right, and when you convince professional racers to give up their finely tuned gear shifters in favor of a stick shift with a chrome skull and glowing eyes you let us all know.

      I truely don't understand this mentality of making everything stupid user friendly. Once upon a time you actually had to know a little bit about the tools you were using to make them work. Now instead of creating powerful tools that require some understanding we want to replace them all with stupid proof crippleware? And people wonder why well over 90% of all email on the internet is spam. People wonder why Windows infection rates are so high (aside from the security holes allowing the stupid user tricks, the stupid user still clicks on everything presented).

      In this I propose that we place large concrete barriers along every major highway and paint tunnels on them with overhead messages like "Do you want a bigger penis? Drive here!" or "Get rich in this tunnel!" and maybe even "Protect your car from theives, enter here!"

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    19. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vista is a major pain with no gain
      It is. I have narrowed it down to what the 'slow' bits are.

      Aero, you better have a 'decent' video card for this or else it 'seems' slower. I leave it on as I am not doing anything major with the laptop it came on. Plus I like the 'pretty'. Turned it off went back to on.

      SystemIndexer, the more I look into it the less I like it. The 'instant search' is nice, however it is a system PIG. It totaly hoses down your NTFS partition with little fragments in the user journal (which you can not defragment at all) and in the 2+ gig of index files you will end up with (which luckely you can defragment). Then it fragments the hell out of the 'empty' space left on your computer. This has the nice effect of making other programs fragment their data too. So it just gets worse and worse. The built in defragmenter only defragments files, it doesnt defragment free space (which would keep files from fragmenting in the first place...). No wonder MS is pushing for SSD hybrid. I had close to 18k in file fragments and 18k in free space fragments until I gave up and used a third party defragmenter. Will probably be off in the next couple of weeks.

      WindowsDefender, nice idea other then the fact is continously scanning your badly fragmented harddrive. It was a pig in XP and still is. Off and disabled.

      Windows prefetch, another nice idea. The problem is however that it is SUPER aggressive. Oh you just released 200 meg let me fill that in with 200 meg of DLLs you 'might' use. This destroys battery life as it swaps in tons of stuff from disk. I have been using it for 6months now. It has 'settled' down a bit, as in not as bad as at first. But it still does it a LOT. Toying with off still on for now.

      The User acess control, good idea. Ive actually grown to like it. It reminds me 'hey your about to do something stupid'. The thing I dont like about it is the half ass way it was done. You are clearly in a 'control panel' kind of thing but prompts you half way thru what you are doing to prompt you. It would have been less painful if it was UP FRONT. Probably will leave on.

      "I am sure Microsoft will fix it soon"
      No they will not. They are busy working on '7'. Vista will be hushed up and quickly burried next to MS Bob.

      Install Ubuntu
      I have, works like crap with my laptop intel video card. Wireless doesnt work without help from God himself. Everything else a solid Linux distro (and I have been thru a few and keep going back to slack).

    20. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly a troll as my year old Ubuntu picked up my USB card reader without an issue, and X will work in basic VESA mode at the worst.
      Presentation pointer? You mean a clicker?
      WiFi adaptor - many are supported under Linux, some are more cranky, but Linux wireless is rather cranky anyway due to major design flaws initially leading to the mess of iwconfig et al. FreeBSD got it right straight up, in ifconfig.

    21. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by at_slashdot · · Score: 4, Funny

      When you've written something as powerful and stable as Windows Vista, come back and tell us about it :)

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    22. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by erc · · Score: 1

      Lots of alternatives to choose from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windowing_system

      And thank you for posting your snarky comment before doing 30 seconds worth of research.

      --
      -- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
    23. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Sir+Homer · · Score: 1

      Actually with X11 DRI, most of the heavy lifting is done in kernel space anyways. X11 basically gives you the advantages true network transparency and performance in one. It's really an excellent and well thought out windowing system, arguably better then OS X Aqua or Windows. Not saying it's perfect, but most idea "inspirations" would actually be regressions.

    24. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Since Intel, nVidia, and ATI all have good support under Linux just what video card are you using?
      Card reader? Mine works fine and so does everyone that I have seen. All of the ones I have seen look like a USB mass storage device.
      WiFi adapter? I have heard that they can be a problem but I have not had any issues. Intel's just work.
      If they don't contact the manufacture and ask them for the drivers.
      If they don't offer them then well you picked hardware that doesn't support Linux.
      Kind of like those people that have printers and other devices that don't work with Vista...

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    25. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by canuck57 · · Score: 1

      And that has precisely what to do with the kernel? X is in user space. If you want to replace X with any other windowing system you like, just port it or write it. And when you've written something as powerful and stable as the X Window System, come back and tell us about it.

      Extremely well put.

    26. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      expand the X-library so that a) local connections don't necessarily use a protocol over a pipe, but make function-calls instead

      What you are asking for would add substantial complexity to the codebase. Right now things are simple because X messages are just that, messages; it doesn't matter if they're carried over TCP/IP or a Unix Domain Socket. That's a feature. As computers get more powerful, message passing becomes more commonplace for convenience's sake. There ARE other GUIs available for Unix, especially on Linux where there's a kernel gui package. Perhaps one of those solutions would better be suited to your needs?

      implement widgets in the X-client library much more detailed than the current window- and image-primitives; say a basic set of menu-bar, scrollbar, list, tabs etc. All pluggable in the X-server, of course

      We have that already. It's called GTK+ or Qt or WxWidgets. Why should they be directly in X?

      Do away - finally - with the silly ways that cut-n-paste and drag-n-drop, in short, IPC and buffers, have been implemented in X. Invent a serious way to communicate between X clients, not a tag-along.

      My understanding is that this existed in both GNOME and KDE.

      It seems to me like you're repeating a frequent and misguided call for overcomplication of X11, which is already quite complicated enough, thank you.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by johanwanderer · · Score: 1

      Most of *our* server boxes don't have X on them, so it is a good distinction.

      Just because there is a lot of effords in the kernel space, that doesn't mean that there isn't effords on the usability of Linux. Look at Ubuntu for example.

    28. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      And when you've written something as powerful and stable as the X Window System, come back and tell us about it.
      With focus on the stable side of that particular equation.

      I've seen lots of X alternatives. You seem to either get stability lacking features/flexibility (QT Embedded or GTK+ Direct FB) or something more feature complete, but utterly lacking in stability (Xynth) or development has completely halted (Fresco)

    29. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Junta · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I will say I agree with you on the message passing situation, it doesn't seem to be a significant penalty (I can still get Windows or better frames per second in 3d games, for example).

      We have that already. It's called GTK+ or Qt or WxWidgets. Why should they be directly in X? While I in part agree with your sentiment, I will say that richer X primitives would mean better default remote performance. Instead of 'here are *all* of the x primitives required to draw a GTK button with the word Cancel on it', which is a not insignificant number, it could say 'draw Cancel button' and cut down on network performance requirements for good remote X. Keeping to a cross-platform API, but with the X implementations of the backend implemented as X extensions may have some value in remote usage scenarios.

      I also agree with you on the sentiment of xdnd and cut and paste. As a user, I'm not seeing the problem. The only user issue I see is that the middle click paste sometimes confuses people, but I'd hate to see that go away. Nothing about that could be called an issue with the architecture regardless of the opinion.

      X gets a lot of power from having abstractions that can be remote agnostic. I think the implementations have done a sufficient job of providing short-path optimizations for the local case without sacrificing the fundamental remote functionality. I think X's task of taking the network architecture and doing it locally fast has produced a smoother experience than the platforms that have had to do the opposite, and try to make their GUI cleanly remotely usable.
      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    30. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could say that you care whether it's the General Surgeon's job to fix your hospital bill, but he's still gonna shrug his shoulders and not give a damn.

      There's 2 stories on the front page regarding desktop linux, and more come along just about every other day. Actual technical kernel stories are rare, so it'd be nice to discuss, you know, what the article is actually about.

    31. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I am in the same boat as the previous AC. About the only thing on the board that isnt Intel is the card reader (which does work flawlessly). Intel has TONS of specs out there for their stuff. The dv5xxx and dv6xxx series of laptops are not exactly 'cutting edge' laptops and are practicaly Intel/AMD reference boards. Some of the parts have been out for more than 3 years. Yet 3d is a nightmare on it (doesnt work and zbuffer doesnt work) and wifi setup is a joke. The rest of it works pretty good.

      You are yelling at him for something that is not true. He is not exactly using a company that is a microsoft shil either, HP.

      The 0$ bit is why I am mostly understanding of what is going on. However for now Linux on this laptop is a non starter and will be for at least another 6-12 months. When I will re again evaluate the situation.

    32. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by LarsG · · Score: 1

      Lots of alternatives to choose from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windowing_system

      And thank you for posting your snarky comment before doing 30 seconds worth of research. Pretty much all the alternatives listed are dead or dying, so pot kettle black on the amount of research done.
      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    33. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well there is a theory in kernel Design that the Kernel should handle all the Input and Output of the system. Xwindows bypasses a lot of the kernel with its own display drivers and such. As well if Xwindows crashes sometimes it is just as bad if the kernel crashed. Locking all user interfaces (including remote connections (at least this has happened to me on a couple of occasions)).

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    34. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      We don't need remote X Windows applications as much as we did before.
      New applications are designed Web Based so anyone can use them depending on their OS and default configurations and setting.

      Most people who use XWindows don't use it over TCP/IP anymore. (Yes I will probable get comments from a bunch of Slashdot users say Yea I Do it is great...) But for normal use it is between the Computer and the Monitor.

      We have better and more effecent ways of comunicating the data then Xwindows ofers.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    35. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Shared memory sounds good. IRIX uses it with Xsgi as an alternative transport for local connections, and it significantly speeds up clients that use lots of small requests, like motif applications with thousands of widgets and x-resources.

    36. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If linux doesn't work for me, then ... for me it sucks. Plain and simple.

      If my way of thinking doesn't work for you, then it sucks for you.

      *If* it worked for me, I'd be grateful for their long hours of hard work (for no compensation).. but it doesn't work for me, so what should I be grateful for? People doing work that doesn't effect me in any way, shape or form?

    37. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Burz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have just articulated the major perceptual obstacle to Linux developers' ability to grasp the desktop. They refuse to draw a neat line between "system" and "applications" and then promote and support that set of interfaces, so there is no consistent platform that facilitates independent distribution of applications to end-users.

    38. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      If i want a race car, I buy a race car.

      If I want a machine that just works, I buy a pc (or a mac, if I don't want to play any games on it).

      If I want to join the linux fan club, then I'd install linux. The point was ... GREAT - it has a good motor. But good engineering isn't the key to making a good product - there are a lot more variables that go into it.

      Sure, bad engineering would cripple a product. But good engineering alone doesn't cut it. It has to be paired with accessibility.

    39. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1, Troll

      so if I had windows, I'd complain about not having the support of microsoft. but since I'm trying linux, I get told to buy new hardware.

      That sounds like a nice double standard from the linux crowd.

    40. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, you go run some benchmarks and prove that there's a big win to be had by moving to a non-IPC based model of communication. A significant rewrite like that requires some serious numbers to back it up, and so far, all you've provided is anecdotes and gutfeel, and my friend, that ain't enough.

    41. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that has precisely what to do with the kernel? X is in user space. If you want to replace X with any other windowing system you like, just port it or write it. And when you've written something as powerful and stable as the X Window System, come back and tell us about it. Userspace and kernelspace are developer-speak, not something the average user really has to know. Users divide the world in to the operating system and applications, and since X isn't an application it's part of "the system" and goes into one big pile. Paricularly since the line has become very blurred, not only is X in userspace, but drivers are in userspace (all high-level USB drivers, for example) or filesystems (FUSE) and so on. It's fairly valid to point out that often problems with "Linux the system" isn't a problem with "Linux the kernel" but rather everything around. For example, USB support in the kernel is done but there's plenty work left on USB device support... Fully agree! The other discussion on Linux coming of age for mass market with Ubuntu (http://techwatch.reviewk.com/2008/04/ubuntu-hardy-heron-ready-for-the-masses/) was precisely around your thoughts. Linux devs are so geeky (or like to pretend to be so), that they love to throw all jargons around. Have you heard MS or Mac talk like that? They just make products that appeal to end users. And that is why they make money.
    42. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by jellomizer · · Score: 0

      Benchmarks may not help as well. Gut feel is sometimes the best we get. I have found linux to be sparatic. with Xwindows. Tiny Delay Blast Tiny Delay Blast. On Average it may be on par but there is something off on its performance that doesn't vibe with me, that other systems such as OS X and Windows doesn't give me.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    43. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes. The problem is, your vaunted "MS or Mac" still have a closed development cycle. Those talks still happen, you just don't hear about them, and fewer people get a say. That may mean quicker decisions are made, but that doesn't mean they're the right decisions.

      Besides, most of us don't work on Linux to make money with it directly. We work on Linux because it's fun and it enables us to do what we want with a machine, rather than being told where to go today.

    44. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Benchmarks may not help as well. Gut feel is sometimes the best we get. I have found linux to be sparatic. with Xwindows. Tiny Delay Blast Tiny Delay Blast. On Average it may be on par but there is something off on its performance that doesn't vibe with me, that other systems such as OS X and Windows doesn't give me.

      Oh, for pity's sake. Throw all your engineering discipline out of the window (ha!) and fall back on gut feel. and superstition. The fact is that Linux (with X Windows) performs much better on the same hardware than either Windows or MacOS. Why is this? Until you've shown that X Windows is a significant cost, then you really don't have any argument beyond hand-waving.

      I have this to add: I personally have been using the X Window system for eighteen years. I've used it on hardware which had an 8MHz - MHz, not GHz - processor. I've used it on hardware that had 8Mb - Mb, not Gb - of RAM. The X Window system performs perfectly well on that hardware spec. It's always outperformed every other windowing system on the same hardware, and it still does now.

      Basic engineering tenet, known to all old engineers (but obviously not taught to young ones): if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    45. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      No, you always want to support X11 because of it's separation of programs and display.

      Link

      Unlike previous display protocols, X was specifically designed to be used over network connections rather than on an integral or attached display device. X features network transparency: the machine where an application program (the client application) runs can differ from the user's local machine (the display server).

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    46. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      You have just articulated the major perceptual obstacle to Linux developers' ability to grasp the desktop. They refuse to draw a neat line between "system" and "applications" and then promote and support that set of interfaces, so there is no consistent platform that facilitates independent distribution of applications to end-users.

      You have just articulated the major perceptual obstacle between you and the kernel developers. The kernel developers aren't doing it to scratch your itches - you don't pay them. They're doing it to scratch their own itches, or else to scratch their employers' itches. If you want an operating system with 'a neat line between "system" and "applications"', go away and write one (or pay someone else to write one). Come back and tell us about it when you're done.

      If there was a big community that wanted to coalesce around a desktop OS, it would have coalesced around Haiku or AmigaOS. It never has. Why? Because the people who want a desktop OS mostly don't want to do the work.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    47. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lots of alternatives to choose from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windowing_system And thank you for posting your snarky comment before doing 30 seconds worth of research. Pretty much all the alternatives listed are dead or dying, so pot kettle black on the amount of research done.

      That's precisely the point. In a competitive environment, X Windows has won out. Why? Because it's extremely hard to write anything as good, and even harder to write anything sufficiently better to persuade any significant number of users to switch.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    48. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by bytesex · · Score: 1

      Various ways: currently, the use of a pipe makes the protocol very safe; there's just one way to 'enter' the X-server, and that way can be monitored byte for byte. You could imagine a more cooperative (but less 'safe') model for local clients; one that uses nothing but shared memory, messages, signals and semaphores to do its job; you could make a model a la kernel syscalls; fill up a piece of memory and call an interrupt. Or even a special build model which delivers a '.so' which is linked into the X server and runs as a separate thread. It all depends how much one attaches to process isolation. The main problem I see is how to safely run various processes with different uids in the same windowing environment. How to prevent leeching of data by X clients. That wouldn't be easy without a pipe, but then again, remote X client would still have to go through the pipe. And you'd have to re-invent the event-model to make a proper difference between an action that is user-instigated and one that is machine-instigated. The X event model would have to go as well; it now depends on the setting of 32 bits. I want the X server to be able to predefine drag-n-drop and mouse gestures. Scrollbar- and menu-retention behaviour should be intrinsic to it. Basically, anything I do with the mouse button pressed, should be understood by the X server already. Unless it doesn't (drawing prgrams, for example), in which case the event should be easy to program against.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    49. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by PeterBrett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people who use XWindows don't use it over TCP/IP anymore. (Yes I will probable get comments from a bunch of Slashdot users say Yea I Do it is great...) But for normal use it is between the Computer and the Monitor.

      I certainly use it all the time. I'm at university, and the ability to pull up Emacs running on my box in my room from any of the Linux workstations around the university (or in my friends' rooms) is really useful.

      Here's an example of how it saved my arse once. I'd been writing a report using LyX, and was at my department to hand it in. Just as I was about to, I noticed that the caption of one of the figures was totally wrong. I logged onto one of the department's workstations, fired up SSH, launched LyX, made the change, generated a PDF, SCP'd it to the local machine and printed it. Without remote X, that would have been an enormous hassle -- I'd have had to set up a VNC server or something (which might have involved installing packages). With remote X, it's a simple matter of ssh -X.

      tl;dr version: you can tear remote X from my bleeding broken dead hands.

    50. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      You miss the point compleatly. I say Hech check it out there may be a problem, and your ways of testing currently may not find it. I am not saying we need to do anything or that it is fundementaly broke. Me, I don't care if X11 works or not. I am not a primary Linux User. I havent been so sence 2002, After being a Linux Zealot from 1994-2001. But Linux is missing the "Snappy Effect" somewhere and if X11 Crashes it seems to effect the entire system. X11 has always seemed like a hack to get graphics running, dificult to configure and manage. The Core X11 Libraries are not very intuietive. Much of it origional designed is based on 20 year old concepts of graphics, not fully taking account of the more modern methods and the fact that standard PC's now have huge graphics capabilites.

      Sometime the quote if it ain't broke, done fix it. Means I don't want to do work with this. But you risk of something new and inovative coming along and replaceing it slowly. Why is it that Macs came from the ashes and haves close to 10% marketshare, while Linux install base (is between 0.5% - 3%) and you need to pay for Macs, and for OS upgrades, get stuck on priority OS and Hardware. The Linux comunity really step on its foot durring the Late 90's and early 2000's It really could have been a huge player on the desktop area, but the comunity is so Anti-Corproate and so resistant to change that it left them off as a distant 3rd place. for PC Desktops. Even during a period when Windows was getting massivly hacked into, and such.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    51. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so if I had windows, I'd complain about not having the support of microsoft. but since I'm trying linux, I get told to buy new hardware. That sounds like a nice double standard from the linux crowd.

      You paid for Windows. You have a contractual relationship with the people who wrote it.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    52. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Benchmarks may not help as well. Gut feel is sometimes the best we get.

      That has to be the most absurd thing I've read in a long time. Either you're not a software developer, or you're an incredibly bad one. Either way, it's clear your opinions regarding X can probably be safely ignored.

    53. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by elBart0 · · Score: 1

      You appear to be assuming that all PCs are desktops where you want/ need the overhead associated with a GUI.
      There are a large number of servers out there which don't need the overhead associated with windows. When putting servers in a server room, I want as much of the CPU and the Memory and HDD available working on the job at hand and not making a UI for people that will never log onto the box anyway.

      To say Linux is crap because it doesn't have a UI you like is an awfully short sighted opinion.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    54. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. If your hardware manufacturer doesn't release decent drivers for Linux, the manufacturer sucks*. Wrong. It doesn't matter the least who *actually* sucks.
      If the stupid straight-out-of-win32-n00b user thinks it sucks, it sucks. Regardless.
      The average user doesn't care. And you know what? He shouldn't have to either.
      I am promoting Linux usage on all areas, but every time I read something like this, I feel strangely out of breath.
      This kind of attitude is the exact reason why it has taken SO DAMN LONG for Linux to become a viable desktop solution.

      When you are done giving thanks, complain to your hardware manufacturer, who does make money from the deal, and does have the full specifications - AND for reasons unknown, have turned down the offer of OSS developers writing the drivers for them, for free . The reasons are hardly unknown:
      1. They are (rightfully) afraid that their competitors will steal their ideas. If they supply a binary driver this is not as likely but since the Linux(i.e. the OSS) world is demanding the source, they feel it isn't worth it, since....
      2. ...the cost of organizing and legally protecting the stuff the release is high...
      3. ...the cost of actually deciding what should be released is high..
      4. They, in their turn, are licensing other companies things, and to release their source they must convince them as well..
      5. Other companies use their technology through licenses, and does not want it to be released since THEIR competitors could use it.
      6. Other agreements, for example with Microsoft, prevents them to.
      7. It takes some time for some to understand that Open Source does not have to be communism. When RMS is on, it sounds a lot like it, you know.

      This is just what i thought of from the top of my head, there are probably lots of other reasons. Many better than these, probably.
      It annoys the hell out of me that people doesn't understand this, and the more the manufacturers hear people whine like this, the more amateurish the Linux world appears.

      The second these companies owners feel that the financial return of entering the Linux world outperforms the risks(did I hear something about "people in parents basements"?) they will come.
      So instead of badmouthing them, try to understand how they work and ease them in.
      --
      Baboons are cute.
    55. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Not really.
      No answer on what video card. Any halfway modern video card will be supported. nVidia, ATI, and Intel all provide good support for Linux as well as Windows.
      No real answer on what WiFi adapter. Again I have installed Linux a few differn't notebooks and have used a few different PCMCIA WiFi adapters. They all work.

      So on other words I think that orignal post was full of bull.

      AS to who to complain at. Real simple answer. The hardware manufacture. Where are the drivers for Linux? They make and sell the hardware so they should provide the drivers. If you get them with the OS that is a double bonus for you.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    56. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You can pry my network transparency from my cold dead hands.

      Also, what evidence do you have that network transparency is any kind of a bottleneck. As I understand it, local communication with the X server takes place over Unix sockets instead of TCP sockets. Unix sockets are much faster, and are caching friendly, so there's no real speed penalty over something like shared memory.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    57. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just install Windows and enjoy your Microsoft enslavement instead of whining here. Freedom comes at a price.

    58. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it that Macs came from the ashes and haves close to 10% marketshare, while Linux install base (is between 0.5% - 3%) and you need to pay for Macs, and for OS upgrades, get stuck on priority OS and Hardware. The Linux comunity really step on its foot durring the Late 90's and early 2000's It really could have been a huge player on the desktop area, but the comunity is so Anti-Corproate and so resistant to change that it left them off as a distant 3rd place.

      Why should we care whether you use Linux or not? Hint: Steve Jobs makes a lot of money if MacOS becomes popular. He's in it for the money and he's making lots of it. Good for him! Linus Torvalds makes a reasonable salary if Linux becomes popular, but he's a talented guy and he'd make a reasonable salary anyway. He's not in it for the money, he's in it for the fun.

      When you buy a Mac, Steve Jobs gets more money. When you use Linux, Linus doesn't have more fun (if anything, with all your moaning and whinging, he'll have less).

      Understand now? There ain't no such thing as a free lunch, and Linus isn't obligated to make you one.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    59. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1, Insightful

      When you've written something as powerful and stable as Windows Vista, come back and tell us about it :)

      Uhh, we already have. Actually something a lot more powerful and stable. That's precisely what this thread's about.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    60. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by xouumalperxe · · Score: 1

      Userspace and kernelspace are developer-speak, not something the average user really has to know.

      On this forum, in a thread about the Linux kernel, what the user sees is besides the point. A perceived problem was pointed out, which lies specifically in the kernelspace/userspace barrier (namely, that some measure of GUI support should be shoehorned into the kernel). This problem is posted by someone technically minded to be discussed and "resolved" by other technically minded people, and user perception of where the problem lies is behind the point (the perception of the problem existing to begin with is a different, arguable, matter).

      Directed at the OP, sorry but "I think Linux needs to seporate from its Unix haritage [sic]" is just silly. Linux is a kernel that implements a POSIX-like interface, and the whole eco-system around it is based precisely on the fact that it is a UNIX-like operating system. What you're suggesting is that you should keep the Linux name and come up with a completely new operating system that is not Linux in any way, shape, or form. Sure, there might be a market for such an operating system, but it's utterly devoid of sense to call that system "Linux".

    61. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Why isn't there a "-1 Deeply Flawed Automotive Analogy" option?

      --
      -
    62. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by pxc · · Score: 1

      I definitely agree. I use FreeNX to do more or less the same thing at school, and it's just damn handy.

    63. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by bytesex · · Score: 1

      I said: expand the current functionality with something that simply *must* have better performance. Think laying out functioncalls in shared memory and calling interrupts for local clients. Think transporting events back to the client in the same way. Think painting directly in the frame buffer using shared memory.

      Also, I realize that there are a load of APIs on top of the X client library that paint beautiful (and sometimes less beautiful) widgets, but a) they can't be fast because they wrap both the way in (XCreateWindow) and the way out (XGetEvent), and b) it would be a lot nicer if the X server actually understood what you *meant* when you said: 'make a scrollbar'. It can implement a faultless scrollbar namely. And generate scrollbar specific events.

      With respect to cut-n-paste; they exist in Gnome and KDE. Separately. And also, separately inside WindowMaker and XFCE. It is a royal *bitch* to program against in X client lib, it depends entirely on the cooperation of the various program- and windowmanager-makers and a few conventions, and it is *very* incomplete.

      I'm not saying X should be more complex. I'm saying it should be simpler: local clients get the same functions, but are executed over IPC primitives, elementary widgets go in the server so that the server can be more apt when it goes and generates events, the server is standardly plugged in with widgets, but these can be replaced either hardcoded, or by using the protocol, and communication between clients is taken care of using a pipe and some sort of object serialization.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    64. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      pci-e broadcomm 4311.
      Intel 945.
      Go play on facebook if you're looking to troll.

    65. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      if I didn't have a laptop, you'd be correct. I thought i made it clear that i wasn't talking about servers. I guess not, but thanks anyways for the troll. You can go back to playing wow or whatever you spend your free time on.

    66. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      ... and maybe you didn't see the parent. I'm glad the kernal has been updated. I'm sure it serves some purpose to some people. but generally speaking, windows does most things for most people (end users).

      but anyways, thanks for coming out.

    67. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by turgid · · Score: 1

      You have the source, so get coding.

    68. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Driver support for the Intel 945.
      http://www.intel.com/support/chipsets/sb/CS-020683.htm
      I found graphics drivers for linux for most flavors of the 945.

      https://help.ubuntu.com/community/WifiDocs/Device/Broadcom_BCM4311_rev_01_(ndiswrapper)
      You have to use ndiswrapper to get it working because Broadcom doesn't provide docs or drivers. Some distros seem to have a patch that does have this card working right now. I have heard Mepis is one of them.

      Of course the original post holds true. Complain to the hardware manufacture. Intel has provided drivers for there hardware. Most distros have it included and Intel has it available on it's website.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    69. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by elBart0 · · Score: 1

      Are you new here? It's not possible to moderate and post in the same subject.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    70. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Burz · · Score: 1

      Actually you're wrong about doing work. There is tons of activity around KDE, Gnome and their associated applications.

      A major problem is that the desktop environment's relationship to the kernel and vice-versa is so loose that UI expectations are pretty low. Software ultimately exists to control hardware, but our GUI software ends up not being able to control our video cards, sound chips, etc. very well as a result. I never know how my DVD drive is going to be handled, whether my player will be able to find it, what the nomenclature is for finding it in a file dialog, etc. because integration is so slipshod. These integration problems also make supporting a "Linux" application too difficult outside of strictly controlled environments where the systems are more like thin clients than PCs.

    71. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      I definitely agree. I use FreeNX to do more or less the same thing at school, and it's just damn handy.

      Although that is a totally different mechanism, and a slightly different use case. Note that the big advantage of remote X is that the applications you launch are fully fledged window session clients in their own right:

      1. Each application appears in its own window on the desktop on the local machine, and can be managed using the local machine's taskbar.
      2. Applications running on the remote system can put icons in the local machine's system tray.
      3. Using remote X over SSH, the only way I can usually tell that an application is running remotely is that there is a <user@remotemachine> tag in the window title.

    72. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Hucko · · Score: 1

      Haiku in particular does seem like there is a decent amount of work being done. If I was more confident (or had another computer) about bug testing, I think I'd be running it.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    73. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by PeterBrett · · Score: 1

      I said: expand the current functionality with something that simply *must* have better performance. Think laying out functioncalls in shared memory and calling interrupts for local clients. Think transporting events back to the client in the same way. Think painting directly in the frame buffer using shared memory.

      Firstly, as I've said in a different post, you can rip X network transparency from bleeding dead hands. Secondly, this already exists, and is a job for extensions: c.f. MIT-SHM.

      Also, I realize that there are a load of APIs on top of the X client library that paint beautiful (and sometimes less beautiful) widgets, but a) they can't be fast because they wrap both the way in (XCreateWindow) and the way out (XGetEvent), and b) it would be a lot nicer if the X server actually understood what you *meant* when you said: 'make a scrollbar'. It can implement a faultless scrollbar namely. And generate scrollbar specific events.

      You do realise that such a widget set would have to be implemented using... wait for it... exactly the event and graphics primitives you're so keen to get rid of! Um, sorry, but your idea fails the common sense test, in that it would provide exactly nothing that the existing libraries you're slating don't already. In fact, the only place where the current rendering methods fall down is when you're running applications over the network -- which you're arguing against being able to do at all!

      With respect to cut-n-paste; they exist in Gnome and KDE. Separately. And also, separately inside WindowMaker and XFCE. It is a royal *bitch* to program against in X client lib, it depends entirely on the cooperation of the various program- and windowmanager-makers and a few conventions, and it is *very* incomplete.

      I don't know enough about it to comment on technically, but I've never found cutting and pasting between GTK-based and Qt-based applications to be a problem. Never. *shrug* Maybe I'm just born lucky.

      I'm not saying X should be more complex. I'm saying it should be simpler: local clients get the same functions, but are executed over IPC primitives, elementary widgets go in the server so that the server can be more apt when it goes and generates events, the server is standardly plugged in with widgets, but these can be replaced either hardcoded, or by using the protocol, and communication between clients is taken care of using a pipe and some sort of object serialization.

      So you're saying that X should be more complex, in fact, if I understand that correctly. I personally think that, given that the client-facing parts of the X server should be kept as lean and mean as possible -- given that the server is really supposed to concentrate on dealing with hardware.

      Your example of events is daft, because the events have to be turned into widget events somewhere, and it's just a matter of where the (very cheap) point-rectangle intersection is done. I can't think of a better place than in the library which your application is using as a friendly API to set up, lay out and render said widgets, that is, exactly how it is at the moment.

      Finally, your proposal would royally screw with funky things like KDE4's Plasma technology, which makes heavy use of Qt 4.4's widget on canvas functionality. From my point of view: denied.

    74. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by spitzak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is NOT with the IPC. So "gut instinct" might make you know there is a problem, but also leads to wrong conclusions.

      There are imho two problems with how X works:

      First there is the ICCCM window manager design. This makes it absolutely impossible to have clean updates and resizes of windows because two asyncrhonous processes are updating different parts of the window. Programs that bypass the window manager, such as media players that do it to make windows without borders, work obviously faster and more smoothly, despite the fact that X is otherwise not changed. The real solution to this is to have the toolkits/libraries draw the window borders. Of course then you will run into the luddites who will scream that the user will be "confused" because all their window borders are not exactly the same color. But that is the correct solution, and users don't seem "confused" that buttons are being drawn by local libraies. If this is politically unacceptable, then solutions involving synchronization between the processess, primarily by letting the application call some code to redraw the borders and also having messages to indicate the desired size/position so the app can resize the window and immediately draw, may work. But that is much messier.

      The second problem is synchronous calls to the xlib where the program has to wait for an answer (which the program often then throws away, but xlib had no idea it did not need to wait). The result is that latency gets turned into bandwidth. In fact we are fairly lucky that ipc was used because it's latency discouraged this design far more than the Win32 kernel api does, but not enough... I think a lot of this is being addressed with xcb replacing xlib.

    75. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by LarsG · · Score: 1

      Ah, I completely misread your comment. Agreed, and I'll pick up that cookware on my way out.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    76. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2+3 are linked to reason 1, which is a manufacturer releasing a binary driver, I agree they are valid points for that scenario. I see 4-6 as being possibly valid for a company releasing the source to an already written driver. I don't think 7 is a good reason.

      But, as far as I can see, none of those are reasons for not releasing hardware information (which could be under a NDA if need be) to a kernel dev, so the developer can write the driver for them.

    77. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by spitzak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I said: expand the current functionality with something that simply *must* have better performance. Think laying out functioncalls in shared memory and calling interrupts for local clients. Think transporting events back to the client in the same way. Think painting directly in the frame buffer using shared memory. Actually ipc is the fastest way if designed right. You are ignoring the fact that it can easily send MORE than one message in a single context switch, by buffering them. Windows only got modern speeds by changing as many of the calls as possible to ones that write messages in a buffer, only sending that buffer when a return value or sync is needed. So in some ways the design of X is already the correct one for maximum performance. Pipelines are how graphics hardware runs so fast, you know.

      Also, I realize that there are a load of APIs on top of the X client library that paint beautiful (and sometimes less beautiful) widgets, but a) they can't be fast because they wrap both the way in (XCreateWindow) and the way out (XGetEvent), and b) it would be a lot nicer if the X server actually understood what you *meant* when you said: 'make a scrollbar'. It can implement a faultless scrollbar namely. And generate scrollbar specific events. Here you are making a serious mistake. If X had done this from the start, it would be using something that looked like Athena widgets, and it would never be able to change. The reason X can run UI designs that were made 30 years after it was created is precisely because it was designed this way. If you believe that "theming" will magically make an obsolete widget library competitive there are some bridges in Brooklyn I would like to sell to you, too.

      Also if you have done any work with talking to window managers or toolkits, you will probably notice that such api's have the annoying tendency to balloon into requiring far more code to talk to the interface than you would require to implement the widgets yourself. You don't want this mess locked into the basic design of your system, you want to be able to replace it when it gets too baroque to use.

      With respect to cut-n-paste; they exist in Gnome and KDE. Separately. And also, separately inside WindowMaker and XFCE. It is a royal *bitch* to program against in X client lib, it depends entirely on the cooperation of the various program- and windowmanager-makers and a few conventions, and it is *very* incomplete. Here I agree. Somebody should write a wrapper for that xlib mess which acknoledges the fact that programs just want to treat the cut & paste as a single block of memory, no matter how large it is, and that should be the official xlib cut/paste api. Right now you cannot get it without using a toolkit and sometimes you don't want to use a toolkit, for instance if you want to write your own toolkit.

      Graphics are also a huge mess, but Cairo seems to be addressing this.
    78. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      Most people who use XWindows don't use it over TCP/IP anymore. (Yes I will probable get comments from a bunch of Slashdot users say Yea I Do it is great...) But for normal use it is between the Computer and the Monitor. One of the best things I ever did was go to work in a corporation. A few years ago I was fairly typical for what I suppose could be called a nix-geek. Whilst I still use things like RTFM all the time, more and more I'm finding, childishness I suppose is the word I'm looking for, in the Linux community. Everyone wonders why the system doesn't make it to the desktop and I could think of a few reasons. Probably the best one for this discussion is what parent just said, nobody cares that XWindows runs over TCP/IP anymore, they're going to look at it and complain that it runs slow. Ok cool it's fun to program and contribute to an Open Source project, maybe donate a few bucks here and there, but there is a reason communism failed and democracy won out. A lot of us geeks could use learning that lesson, and understanding that what the consumer wants is what the consumer should get. They don't give a flying rats ass about ISO standard 31337 or RFC2193 (ok the RFC is a bad example anyway) - they only care that it runs well, is easy to use, and doesn't crash often.

      Sure, bring on the Micro$oft claims about crashes, but at the end of the day everyone else uses Microsoft so for Linux-based systems to get anywhere they have to be BETTER.

      Just another note before I sign off (and watch my karma burn): The whole "It's GNU/Linux not Linux" mentality that Stallman (? forget who) has is not helping the situation. A user will refer to an x,y pointing device as a mouse even if it looks like a giant chicken. They are certainly not going to call it a "Logitech Bluetooth Mouse" and we should stop expecting them to.

      Right, just to sign off, my users deserve everything I do to them, I'm merely saying this as one geek to a whole bunch of geeks because I want to see Open Source make it to the desktop. Viva La FreeBSD You Linux wimps! ;)
      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    79. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Wyzard · · Score: 1

      The X server and your application are running in different processes, so communication between them can't be done with function calls. But for clients running locally, pipes haven't been used in a long time -- Xorg uses shared memory for transferring messages efficiently between the client and the server.

      The "basic set of menu-bar, scrollbar, list, tabs etc." are provided by toolkits such as GTK and Qt, which are used by most modern applications. These work fine already; building a toolkit into the X server itself wouldn't bring any benefit, and would just complicate the protocol.

      Cut-and-paste and drag-and-drop work fine for me in GNOME, and I believe they work well in KDE too. The toolkits provide this functionality to applications for free.

    80. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To say that X is bloated etc is wrong. The X core iself uses a few megabytes of ram, most the rest us used for data or various drivers and extensions. As well, X uses unix sockets for local connections which are very fast and use shared memory. There probably would not be any significant performance improvement by using direct library calls. X also is very capable and has advanced graphics rendering features. If these are not support for your hardware this is due to your driver and has nothing to do with X itself. Still some drivers do not support native OpenGL or DRI. AS far as graphics toolkits, this does not belong in the X server at all. I would not be averse to be a standard widget set being included with the X distribution as a library that can be loaded by the client, and one usually is included, the athena widgets. Anyhow, X installations are now almost always accompanied by a Gtk install which has become universal and modern, Building a widget set actually into a server makes no technical sense at all and this was left out of the server on purpose. It is something which makes more sense to implement in widget libraries. X is an advanced window system and it is very well equipped to meet the most advanced graphics needs. Extensions have been developed which have added cutting edge features to the system which make it more capable than Windows Vista. This is all done as well while maintaining backward compatability and network transparency. X's age is an asett since it is a mature, stable, heavily tested and refined code base. X is a well performing, stable, refined and advanced window system that can serve all of our needs.

    81. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Paricularly since the line has become very blurred

      The line was blurred by a court case where Microsoft failed to convince the court that Internet Explorer was part of the Operating System. The line has been furthur blurred by clueless post-literate newbies that consider the beige box on their desks a "hard drive" and use technical words in an attempt to sound skilled. The definition in the texbooks didn't change.

    82. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by beav007 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It doesn't matter the least who *actually* sucks.
      It's true that it doesn't matter who sucks. That fact, however, doesn't actually make what I said wrong.

      The average user doesn't care. And you know what? He shouldn't have to either.
      That's fine, but it doesn't make drivers magically appear out of thin air. They still have to be written. This is not a trivial task, especially when the specifications are not available.

      If you had actually bothered to check the link (who am I kidding, this is /.) you would find that the devs have sorted out the NDA situation already...
    83. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      ... because the huge mission critical CAD and 3D display systems used by Nasa, mining corporations, Geo survey companies, satellite systems, etc. all run on Vista, not X?

      Here's a clue -- Windows is an engineering nightmare for true high-power stability.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    84. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only wish Apple would release Mac OSX for usage on any PC, then I would shift over completely to using it.

      Even if Apple were to specify *exactly* what the system requirements are for the Mac OSX to work - including the video card, memory types etc, I think people would go to the trouble of setting up their hardware exactly to Apple specifications so that Mac OSX can be run on it legally.

    85. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by BrianGKUAC · · Score: 1

      So basically, you're making a point that's irrelevant to the article.

      This is news for people that work with the kernel or have issues that are directly related to a previous problem in the kernel. This isn't an Ubuntu advertisement. Get over it and move on to the next article, which likely is an Ubuntu advert.

      --
      Menus: Linux=function, Windows=vendor, OS X=as little as possible. Makes a statement, don't you think?
    86. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by db32 · · Score: 1

      And to a power user (racecar driver) that engineering is more important than the pretty factor crap. I am worlds more efficient on Linux platforms because I can make it do the advanced things I want with minimal fuss. Windows is crippling the user by hiding things from them and trying to make decisions for it.

      The fact that you are making this about the "linux fan club" pretty much shows that this is more about your own inablity to work the intefaces provided (KDE/Gnome are both pretty solid) rather than any actual problem with the interfaces themselves.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    87. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by zig007 · · Score: 1

      I disagree. Obviously :-)

      These points was not meant to apply to the software(which was to be written by a OSS developer, remember?), but to general detailed information regarding the hardware. You can deduce lot's of things about it through there and making a good hardware interface is hard and a competitive edge, if well executed.

      And as such, I believe they are perfectly valid.
      An NDA is almost pointless since the driver itself, being open source and hopefully well commented, will reveal all the information needed. No one will need to ask it's developer. Also, it is likely that there will have to be many developers involved, which has to share information.

      And with regards to no 7, it is my personal experience that most peoples' first impression of the OSS community as a bunch of over-idealistic leftie nerds.

      First impressions last. And if the first impression isn't "business opportunity", it will last even longer.

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    88. Re:Wonderful. More Stable. ... So? by zig007 · · Score: 1

      If you had actually bothered to check the link Well, i actually had, and whether they sign an NDA or not is not important, the driver itself will be open source and hopefully well commented, which is almost as good as having the documentation. Then, of course, it is a matter of trust, NDA or not.

      That's fine, but it doesn't make drivers magically appear out of thin air. They still have to be written. This is not a trivial task, especially when the specifications are not available. Yep, this is a problem. You are obviously right about that, since that's why we are having this discussion.
      However, the problem will not be solved by bashing the manufacturers, but instead by trying to figure out why they don't take an offer that seems like money in the bank.
      They would not take this stand without reasons to do it. And many of them are real-world and non-negotiable reasons, not just something they have to change their mind about.

      But to find those reasons the community must try and see the problem from the manufacturers view, and realize that hardware development project has huge costs and dangers that are not the same as those in a commercial software development project. This makes hardware development a fundamentally different business from software development and requires a different mindset.

      Adding to that, there are many academic types in FOSS that has never really worked much even in commercial *software* projects, where the rules and what one needs to take into consideration is different from the black- and white thinking of the academic world.
      --
      Baboons are cute.
  2. I like that one by jackharrer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Running a pre-release of Fedora 9 on his wife's computer, Linus Torvalds was not able to view YouTube videos with Swfdec, leading him to send a comical error report in which he makes an ardent appeal for help to Fedora developers, "This is 'high' priority because the wife will kill me if she doesn't have her videos."

    LOLZ ;)

    --

    "an experienced, industrious, ambitious, and often, quite often, picturesque liar" - Mark Twain
    1. Re:I like that one by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dear Linus,
      From all of us here at the Fedora Project we just wanted you to know we're very
      pleased you're testing Fedora 9 and filing bugs. We also wanted to let you know
      that we're never gonna give up fixing these bugs.We know when we do our best
      we're never gonna let our users down. Sometimes it may feel like it but we're
      never gonna give you the run around on these bugs, either. We don't want to
      desert you nor you to desert us.

      As frustrating as they are we hope we're never gonna make you cry.

      Sincerely,
      Seth Vidal
      Fedora Project Board Member.
    2. Re:I like that one by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1
      The entire bug report is fairly epic:

      I didn't try a lot of videos, but I couldn't find a single one that actually
      worked. And what's the internet without the rick-roll?

      Expected results:Rick Astley in all his glory! Surprised he on any distro as hes probably systematically slagged them all of but i suppose that's the way flame wars go.
      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    3. Re:I like that one by superash · · Score: 2, Funny
      I like the reply to the above comment :



      The Board wishes it to be known that:
      1. Mr. Vidal has, in the parlance of second-rate spy movies, "gone rogue," and has posted on behalf of the Board without the required routing through several committees, endless cross-posted discussion, and explicit approval, and therefore his pay will be docked accordingly.
      2. He is clearly an enormous Rick Astley fan, although he attempts to disguisse this fact through paraphrase.
      3. We love you, Linus! *scream*
      4. We wish for Mrs. Torvalds not to visit pain upon us, and thus thank our community for stepping in and helping Linus get this bug handled.
      5. Because it's Friday, things may get a little silly around here. Oh, and mind the gap.
      Paul W. Frields Fedora Project Leader
    4. Re:I like that one by fluffman86 · · Score: 1

      link plz?

    5. Re:I like that one by ianalis · · Score: 1

      It's in TFA. For the impatient (like me), it's https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439858

    6. Re:I like that one by hey! · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dear Mr. Torvalds

      We appreciate your submission of a bug report for swfdec, and we have submitted it to the maintainers. However we are unable at this point to assign it "high" priority because it appears to be an interaction of a buggy ACPI BIOS with the Intel HDA audio codecs. We refer you to Toshiba for support details.

      In the meantime, you may not be aware that the traditional SYSV "inittab" mechanism has been replaced in recent editions of Fedora with the newer "upstart" mechanism. Simply edit the "/etc/event.d/linus" file, specifying that under the appropriate runlevels you should be automatically respawned. This should effectively prevent you from being killed. At least permanently so.

      -The Fedora Support Team

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    7. Re:I like that one by Spuds2600 · · Score: 1

      It was better than that... I think the bug report started:

      YouTube no worky, wife no happy.

      --
      Spuds
  3. A better link to the post is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://kerneltrap.org/

    1. Re:A better link to the post is... by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Modding post -1, itsatrap

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    2. Re:A better link to the post is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you! I hate it when people fail to hyperlink properly. The author linked the word "announcing" to kernel.org which has no such announcement. I'm interested in the announcement, not the source code.

    3. Re:A better link to the post is... by acrollet · · Score: 1

      it's a trap - get an axe. /ash

  4. Re:Black monolith by Doc+Nielsen · · Score: 5, Funny

    no no they invented this new thing called modules, which you can load and unload. It's really neat! ;D

    --
    To boldly mod where no one has trolled before.
  5. Re:Black monolith by tomtomtom777 · · Score: 1

    every time we need to load a driver into kernel-space

    "Every time" as in .... ? Most of us don't load drivers into kernel space on a yearly basis. Correct me if I'm wrong but this sounds like a terrible argument against a monolithic kernel.

  6. What does this mean for the Desktop? by bogaboga · · Score: 1
    What does this kernel mean for the desktop? Does it for example allow me to use my Hauppauge PVR-150 remote control by default, just like the present kernel does for the TV card itself ?

    Under the kernel for Mythbuntu 7.10, that getting that remote control to work is next to impossible...even after tinkering with all sorts of text configuration files. To cut it short, getting the remote control to work was an exercise in frustration.

    If this kernel fixes this, I will be happy.

    1. Re:What does this mean for the Desktop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me no understand. Car analogy pleeze.

    2. Re:What does this mean for the Desktop? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      If this kernel fixes this, I will be happy.

      Why on earth would you think the kernel would fix a remote control?

      The program which MythTV uses for remote controls is called "lirc". You didn't say which version of the PVR-150 remote you have, but it sounds like the MCE version (which was tailored to the Microsoft MCE OS).

      Google for whichever version of remote you have and lirc, and there'll be a dozen howtos to help you.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  7. Almost slashdotted: copy of important stuff below by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Direct link to Linus' 2.6.25 announcement message

    Also kernelnewbies.org seems to be very slow at the moment. Here is a copy of the important changes section from their 2.6.25 changelog page:

    1.1. Memory Resource Controller

    Recommended LWN article (somewhat outdated, but still interesting): "Controlling memory use in containers"

    The memory resource controller is a cgroups-based feature. Cgroups, aka "Control Groups", is a feature that was merged in 2.6.24, and its purpose is to be a generic framework where several "resource controllers" can plug in and manage different resources of the system such as process scheduling or memory allocation. It also offers a unified user interface, based on a virtual filesystem where administrators can assign arbitrary resource constraints to a group of chosen tasks. For example, in 2.6.24 they merged two resource controllers: Cpusets and Group Scheduling. The first allows to bind CPU and Memory nodes to the arbitrarily chosen group of tasks, aka cgroup, and the second allows to bind a CPU bandwidth policy to the cgroup.

    The memory resource controller isolates the memory behavior of a group of tasks -cgroup- from the rest of the system. It can be used to:

    * Isolate an application or a group of applications. Memory hungry applications can be isolated and limited to a smaller amount of memory.
    * Create a cgroup with limited amount of memory, this can be used as a good alternative to booting with mem=XXXX.
    * Virtualization solutions can control the amount of memory they want to assign to a virtual machine instance.
    * A CD/DVD burner could control the amount of memory used by the rest of the system to ensure that burning does not fail due to lack of available memory.

    The configuration interface, like all the cgroups, is done by mounting the cgroup filesystem with the "-o memory" option, creating a randomly-named directory (the cgroup), adding tasks to the cgroup by catting its PID to the 'task' file inside the cgroup directory, and writing values to the following files: 'memory.limit_in_bytes', 'memory.usage_in_bytes' (memory statistic for the cgroup), 'memory.stats' (more statistics: RSS, caches, inactive/active pages), 'memory.failcnt' (number of times that the cgroup exceeded the limit), and 'mem_control_type'. OOM conditions are also handled in a per-cgroup manner: when the tasks in the cgroup surpass the limits, OOM will be called to kill a task between all the tasks involved in that specific cgroup.

    Code: (commit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

    1.2. Real Time Group scheduling

    Group scheduling is a feature introduced in 2.6.24. It allows to assign different process scheduling priorities other than nice levels. For example, given two users on a system, you may want to to assign 50% of CPU time to each one, regardless of how many processes is running each one (traditionally, if one user is running f.e. 10 cpu-bound processes and the other user only 1, this last user would get starved its CPU time), this is the "group tasks by user id" configuration option of Group Scheduling does. You may also want to create arbitrary groups of tasks and give them CPU time privileges, this is what the "group tasks by Control Groups" option does, basing its configuration interface in cgroups (feature introduced in 2.6.24 and described in the "Memory resource controller" section).

    Those are the two working modes of Control Groups. Aditionally there're several types of tasks. What 2.6.25 adds to Group Scheduling is the ability to also handle real time (aka SCHED_RT) processes. This makes much easier to handle RT tasks and give them scheduling guarantees.

    Documentation: sched-rt-group.txt

    Code: (commit 1, 2, 3, 4)

    There's serious interest in running RT tasks on enterprise-class hardware, so a large number of enhancements t

  8. Behold! Thus sayeth Linus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    And a collective orgasm was released from the entire Lunix community.

  9. It's a kernel, not an OS by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "numerous changes in this revision of the OS"

    Asking people to call it GNU/Linux is one thing, but it's not much to ask Slashdot not to call a kernel changelog an OS changelog.

    1. Re:It's a kernel, not an OS by at_slashdot · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Oh, so you are one of those "just a kernel" type of guys. Lately I started to see them just like the "just a theory" people...

      A kernel can be an OS. If you use Linux on your cell isn't that the OS? What do you think the OS is, the GUI on top of the kernel?

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    2. Re:It's a kernel, not an OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where is Linux's shell (graphical or text-based) that I can use? Oh... that's right. It doesn't have one. Because it is "just" a kernel. Linux is part of an operating system, but it is not an operating system. Until bash/[insert command line shell of choice] or GNOME/[insert destkop environment of choice] is a part of the kernel, the kernel is not a complete operating system.

    3. Re:It's a kernel, not an OS by Burz · · Score: 1

      What do you think the GUI is? An application??

      Many Linux developers would say "yes", and with that I rest my case in demonstrating "the problem" with getting Linux-based stuff accepted on the desktop.

    4. Re:It's a kernel, not an OS by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      There are many OSes without GUI, read in any Computer Science book the definition of OS.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    5. Re:It's a kernel, not an OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Saw a similar comment to this one in the last posting about a kernel version increment:)

      At least the article wasn't titled, "Linus Announces the 2.6.25 Ubuntu Kernel"

    6. Re:It's a kernel, not an OS by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Which textbook did you get your definition from - or did you make it up yourself?

    7. Re:It's a kernel, not an OS by anon37 · · Score: 1

      "Asking people to call it GNU/Linux is one thing, ..."

      My pet peeve is when people call their favorite editor "emacs" when they know perfectly well that the emacs code is useless without support for the keyboard, screen, and many other resources provided by the operating system. If you are going to refer to your editor, you should give credit to those who are responsible for the code that makes running the editor possible. Thus, the proper way to refer to it would be "Torvalds/emacs," "Jobs/emacs," or, most popular of all, "Gates/emacs."

    8. Re:It's a kernel, not an OS by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I dare you to show me how you can use the Linux kernel as an OS without a C library, applications, a shell interface of some form or anything else.

      Your cell phone example provides interfaces and software linked against libraries that are NOT part of the Linux kernel. Ditto for even elevators running embedded Linux.

      Even 'init' which is typically required to make your system boot something useful is not part of this release.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    9. Re:It's a kernel, not an OS by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Why would integrating something as complex and potentially bug-ridden as a GUI into your kernel space be a good thing exactly? Printer drivers run in user-space, IR remote software runs in user space, the Japanese Kanji interfaces run in user space, even the web server (yes, yes, I know about Tux) and mail server run in user space. Why should the GUI be special?

      You do realize that Microsoft is bragging about how the next version of Windows will offer GUI-less installation options, right?

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  10. Re:Almost slashdotted: copy of important stuff bel by HydraSwitch · · Score: 1

    It seems to me they should add a dns cname of slashdotnewbies.org.

  11. nvidia drivers by FudRucker · · Score: 0

    those of you that use the nvidia driver from http://www.nvidia.com/object/unix.html will find the current release NVIDIA-Linux-x86-169.12.pkg1.run will not work with linux-2.6.25

    i built 2.6.25 this morning and used menuconfig to load my .config from 2.6.24.4 and once i had my kernel built and rebooted and when i went to build the nvidia driver it failed so i reinstalled 2.6.24.4 which works run the nvidia driver without problems(waits patiently for a new nvidia driver)...

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A quick search would have revealed that patches are readily available.

      http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=110088

    2. Re:nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The latest 173.08 beta drivers work fine. For me at least.. http://www.nvidia.com/Download/Find.aspx?lang=en-us

  12. CIFS by Chemisor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Has anyone noticed the forced CIFS migration warning yet? Do you have some links on how to do that? I mean just the obvious two things of being able to mount a remote windows share (preferably without being root), and setting up CUPS for printing to a windows-shared printer. All I see on Google are technical articles about the protocol.

    1. Re:CIFS by neersign · · Score: 3, Informative

      i'm not 100% sure on what you're asking, but I'm guessing you are trying to change from smbfs to cifs, which isn't a big deal. Go in to the kernel config and select "CIFS", deselect "SMBFS" (you can have both selected, but there is no need), recompile, reboot. more details: http://www.gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Setup_Samba

    2. Re:CIFS by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      > i'm not 100% sure on what you're asking,

      There is a big kernel warning that pops up in 2.6.25, saying that SMBFS is obsolete and will be removed by 2.6.27. As someone who has never even heard of CIFS until I saw that, my first reaction was "OMG, those Linux guys broke Samba! I'm so screwed!". I think that there are quite a few other people who will feel the same way when they try to mount a windows share.

      > http://www.gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Setup_Samba

      I'll copy the link, in case you don't get modded up. It seems that I'll only need to change the filesystem type in fstab, so it isn't a catastrophe.

    3. Re:CIFS by arkhan_jg · · Score: 1

      SMBFS is where you're effectively pretending to be a windows 98 client to the windows host. The code is very old and barely maintained for the last few years.

      CIFS is the protocol that effectively replaced SMB in windows, and the CIFS module means you're pretending to be a windows 2000/XP client to the windows host.


      mount -t cifs //[windows machine name]/[share] /[mount] -o "username="

        is all you need for a manual mount, or use "mount.cifs", assuming cifs is compiled into the kernel or loaded as a module.

      Changing "smbfs" to "cifs" in fstab is pretty much all you need to do to migrate across (and swap username for user, IIRC)

      CUPS should not be affected, it's supported CIFS for a good long time.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
  13. Network Namespace ... by LabelThis · · Score: 1

    Anyone else notice how far the network namespace work has come? Me likes the prospects of having virtual routing and forwarding in the mainstream kernel.

  14. Re:Black monolith by X.25 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ok, so is it still a big monolithic kernel that we need to recompile every time we need to load a driver into kernel-space?

    You're the proof that time travel is possible.

  15. Re:Behold! Thus sayeth Linus! by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm confused. I thought Linus worked on Linux, not Lunix

  16. The bug mentioned... by DarenN · · Score: 1

    Was interesting - apparently it turns out that it's been there since the Sparse Memory Model was implemented but had never tripped before.

    There was no range check on memory_present() so if you called it with a start/end range outside outside the scope of MAX_PHYSMEM_BITS it would overwrite areas of memory causing very weird and random effects during boot. Tracking it down was apparently a major effort by a good few people because the effects were so random.

    Good that it's been found and cleaned up!

    --
    Rational thought is the only true freedom
    1. Re:The bug mentioned... by iabervon · · Score: 1

      It requires that you have 4G of RAM on a 32-bit kernel without PAE and have enabled sparsemem. Yes, despite having more physical memory installed than the size of the address space, you think your memory is sparse. Probably nobody ever configured the kernel like this until Ingo was doing random configurations (for testing) on a high-end machine.

      Sure, it's a bug, and was a mess to debug, but it turned out that probably nobody would have ever had a problem with this in practice. But they didn't know that until they'd debugged it, and they didn't want to leave a weird memory corruption bug they didn't understand, even if they'd only seen it in a strange configuration, because it could have turned out to happen on other configurations less frequently. And they put in a bunch of infrastructure to test this, too.

  17. CORAL CACHE by chk89 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Is it SO MUCH to ask that someone caches the links on coral cache before they get slashdotted? Just append .nyud.net to the hostname.

    1. Re:CORAL CACHE by warsql · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Please don't. The proxy I have to use blocks nyud.net.

      --
      878659 - yep its prime.
    2. Re:CORAL CACHE by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Install the Slashdotter Firefox plugin.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  18. exec mode by Sobrique · · Score: 4, Funny
    I'm really looking forward to 'exec mode'. It's an awesome kernel feature that pipelines applications for faster execution. It's still experimental though, so you've got to enable it.

    It's an option in your system profile (usually /etc/profile).

    Just add 'exec true' in there, and it'll start using the prefetch code. OK, so it's not a huge performance boost, but I'll take a free 5-7% any day of the week.

    I think you can do it as a non-privileged user by adding it to your 'personal' profile (.profile or .bashrc typically) but obviously it's not then affecting the core system processes.

    1. Re:exec mode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Funny. How about -1, wrong audience?

      For the uninitiated: placing 'exec true' in your profile renders you unable to open a terminal (on 99% of linux desktops that use bash as shell)

      (heh. Captcha: lecture)

  19. Re:Behold! Thus sayeth Linus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And a collective orgasm was released from the entire Lunix community.

    Shit, you got any tissues?

  20. Kernel or OS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'It's been long promised, but there it is now,' began Linux creator Linus Torvalds, announcing the 2.6.25 Linux kernel. [...] There were numerous changes in this revision of the OS. So, which one is it?
  21. Trust me! by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    When it comes to the remote control, I tried. Trust me. It just did not work. I know about lirc. I tinkered all I could but it did not work! There is community support for the WinTV-PVR-150 at http://ivtvdriver.org/ and I can tell you that it did not work for me. By the way, I am no Linux newbie but I must admit I failed on this.

    1. Re:Trust me! by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1
      By the way, I am no Linux newbie

      Then why did you raise a Microsoft/lirc issue in a Linux kernel discussion?

      The page you've linked to is about support for the PVR-150's video decoding chips, not for the remote controller.

      The problems you're having with the remote may be because there's more than one version, the original, and the Microsoft one. If you try to use the original config files with the Microsoft remote, it won't work.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:Trust me! by PowerKe · · Score: 1

      If you can't get the receiver on the WinTV card to work, you can also build a small receiver yourself. It's easy to build, and easy to set up with lirc: http://www.lirc.org/receivers.html

  22. CAN support! Yay! by fgaliegue · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Linux can now be used to debug your car's network - provided a hardware interface exists.

    If it doesn't, I bet it will not be long before someone implements one. And since CAN is used in pretty much every automation in modern cars, who knows. "An open firmware for your Passat", anyone?

    1. Re:CAN support! Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least, I'm not the only one begging for this,
      now if we can get working drivers for this card that would be nice:

      http://www.arcom.com/products/icp/pc104/modules/AIMcan1.htm

  23. calling a kernel a kernel by H4x0r+Jim+Duggan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No one runs "just a kernel" on their phone. Look at OpenMoko, they use GNU libc just like Debian and Fedora do.

    1. Re:calling a kernel a kernel by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      If the definition of OS is "has to run C programs" then you are right.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
  24. Re:Almost slashdotted: copy of important stuff bel by dpilot · · Score: 1

    I thought I'd heard somewhere that the new (fully OSS) Atheros drivers were going into the kernel with 2.6/.25, but see no mention. Does anyone have any information on the Atheros/DadWifi kernel merge plans?

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  27. Re:Almost slashdotted: copy of important stuff bel by dpilot · · Score: 1

    Never mind. Found it on kernelnewbies, under "ath5k", I was searching "atheros".
    http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commit;h=fa1c114fdaa605496045e56c42d0c8aa4c139e57

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  28. Why would they even bother? by Burz · · Score: 0, Troll

    If a shopper wants to choose between 3 wifi cards, do the Linux developers bother to tell the shopper quickly and concisely which of those will work??

    The community of coders, sysadmins and other techies aren't even interested in TELLING Linux novices that an "Acme Inc" device is supported! So OEMs see little actual need for compatibility being expressed. No comprehensive and authoritative Hardware Compatibility List = no market pressure.

    If Linus had one hairsbreadth of concern for a users' ability to discern compatibility while contemplating hardware purchases, then his group would have setup an HCL years ago. But instead he leaves that horrid little task of dealing with the unwashed to the distros, who produce pathetic nearly-empty HCL databases with some of the most unpleasant web-search design imaginable.

    1. Re:Why would they even bother? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      If a shopper wants to choose between 3 wifi cards, do the Linux developers bother to tell the shopper quickly and concisely which of those will work??

      No. Why should they? Do the shoppers pay them? Do the makers of the wifi cards pay them? Answers: no, and no. The developers are doing it for fun - their fun, not your fun. If no-one else wrote a driver for the card you bought, write it yourself and contribute it back.

      If Linus had one hairsbreadth of concern for a users' ability to discern compatibility while contemplating hardware purchases, then his group would have setup an HCL years ago. But instead he leaves that horrid little task of dealing with the unwashed to the distros, who produce pathetic nearly-empty HCL databases with some of the most unpleasant web-search design imaginable.

      Why should Linus do anything for you? When did you last do anything for him? You have a really weird idea about how the world works.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    2. Re:Why would they even bother? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I see your point, and don't mean to troll; but I think this is one reason Linux doesn't get as much use as it would. There is no real helpful Linux community. Linux nerds are a bunch of DIY guys, who expect everyone else to be so too. But the novice doesn't have the wherewithall (or knowledge) to hit up man pages, and start digging through arcane forums littered with snippets of code.

      Of all three of the OSs I use, Linux has the least helpful community. This isn't saying that the Mac and Windows communities are perfect, but there are people out there who genuinely want to help users. I'm sure there are some Linux folk out there with this mindset, but not nearly enough.

      The most common phrase of help offered in Linux forums is: "write it yourself". Which is completely not helpful to anyone outside of someone who can actually write their own device driver (who thus wouldn't be asking).

      Linux's community works very well for the Linux community, but if Linux ever truly becomes popular, this is going to work against it. Not everyone, then, would be a developer, or other flavor of code monkey. In this sense, I still doubt that the much fabled Year of the Linux Desktop is actually ready to come. Most Linux people seem to absolutely HATE novices. They ask stupid questions. Which is a valid complaint, until you realize that stupid in a Linux forum means "hasn't been using it since 1843", or "can't code".

      Don't take this as an attack on you personally, or on Linux in general. As I said, this community ethic works very well, and has contributed to Linux being as robust as it is, since it is actively aimed at developing Linux further, but it just neglects helping users of Linux who are not aimed at developing Linux. I don't know how to rectify this. Linux, not being generally for-profit, doesn't have the customer support incentive of the other venders, and being that it was an operating system of misanthropic geeks for so long, misanthropic geeks are the totality of the community.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    3. Re:Why would they even bother? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      I see your point, and don't mean to troll; but I think this is one reason Linux doesn't get as much use as it would. There is no real helpful Linux community. Linux nerds are a bunch of DIY guys, who expect everyone else to be so too. But the novice doesn't have the wherewithall (or knowledge) to hit up man pages, and start digging through arcane forums littered with snippets of code.

      I don't think we're disagreeing very much. The people who make Linux what it is don't need it to become popular, and, in particular, aren't terribly worried about making the system friendly to non-geek users. We are geeks, and we're also elitists. If Linux gets to be a 'user oriented' operating system, then it won't suit us, and we'll probably all decamp - to the Hurd, or something new.

      If you want a user friendly operating system, and you don't have the skills to do it yourself, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates will be perfectly happy to take your money and sell you one. And that's perfectly OK, if that's what you want.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    4. Re:Why would they even bother? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a shopper wants to choose between 3 wifi cards, do the Linux developers bother to tell the shopper quickly and concisely which of those will work??

      Half the time they probably can't, because identical model #s may have different chipsets, depending on which supplier was cheapest on a given day.

      (Creative used to pull this nonsense back in the SoundBlaster16 days.)

    5. Re:Why would they even bother? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      We agree around 50%. I don't think that this is necessarily a good thing, and think that it shows that the community is at cross purposes.

      To a large degree Linux needs elitist geeks, their what makes it tick. But at the same time we speak of "The Year of the Linux Desktop", which leads me to believe that some subset of these elitist geeks want their pet OS to be adopted by the masses. Being elitist geeks is at good for Linux as a project, but bad for Linux as a pay OS alternative.

      There needs to be some balance. I would be doubtful, but I have been wrong about these things before. I always thought that Linux devs couldn't make a good GUI to save their lives, but I'm slowly being proven wrong (not 100% yet, but 60% is better than 0%) by Ubuntu, and the KDE and Gnome teams.

      If you want a user friendly operating system, and you don't have the skills to do it yourself, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates will be perfectly happy to take your money and sell you one. And that's perfectly OK, if that's what you want.

      This is where we're going to disagree. I always saw Linux and the OSS community as somewhat an ethical stance as well. The MS and Apple's of the world are not good for OS development, and are guilty of some ethically wonkey actions. To combat this Linux must be viable enough to change their practices (i.e. a threat).

      I would like to do with Linux what I did with Firefox, give it to all my novice friends for their own good, safety, and enjoyment. This point is somewhat in the future still, in part because of the communities ethos. I sometimes have a bad taste in my mouth recommending people switch to OS X, to escape Windows problems. I'd rather hand them a nice Ubuntu disk.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    6. Re:Why would they even bother? by Burz · · Score: 1
      Actually, there is some form of gratification going on there, though with all the corporate sponsorship I wouldn't portray it as simply "fun". Its serious, and the arguments that the kernel devs get into w/each other is further proof of something much more than a passtime.

      Why should Linus do anything for you? Me? Moi? I don't need him or his cohorts to take extra steps for my sake; I'm an experienced admin.

      OTOH there are any number of people other than me who would like to know the purpose behind this. If the userspace coders have to document their software interfaces for the sake of distro interoperability, then why doesn't the kernel group document the supported hardware interfaces?
    7. Re:Why would they even bother? by Burz · · Score: 1

      I would like to do with Linux what I did with Firefox, give it to all my novice friends for their own good, safety, and enjoyment. This point is somewhat in the future still, in part because of the communities ethos. The overall expectation is for the KDEs and Firefoxes to add the user-friendly aspect to an OS like frosting on a cake. But modern OS design doesn't work like that: A lot of particular hardware behavior has to be accounted for and expressed at even the highest-level UI.

      The LSB Desktop spec is supposed to play a role in all this. But the effort is looking pretty anemic so far. After years of sitting there it has achieved near-zero mindshare even among application developers.
    8. Re:Why would they even bother? by Burz · · Score: 1

      But creating a list would add pressure for them to stop that practice.

    9. Re:Why would they even bother? by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      To a large degree Linux needs elitist geeks, their what makes it tick. But at the same time we speak of "The Year of the Linux Desktop", which leads me to believe that some subset of these elitist geeks want their pet OS to be adopted by the masses. Being elitist geeks is at good for Linux as a project, but bad for Linux as a pay OS alternative.

      I think the 'we' who speak of 'the year of the Linux desktop' is a different 'we' than the 'we' who actually build free software (and, for the record, I don't any more as my contract of employment prevents me). The people who speak of 'the year of the Linux desktop' are mostly - not entirely - journalists and media pundits. The people who build free software mostly - not entirely - don't care.

      There needs to be some balance. I would be doubtful, but I have been wrong about these things before. I always thought that Linux devs couldn't make a good GUI to save their lives, but I'm slowly being proven wrong (not 100% yet, but 60% is better than 0%) by Ubuntu, and the KDE and Gnome teams.

      If you want a user friendly operating system, and you don't have the skills to do it yourself, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates will be perfectly happy to take your money and sell you one. And that's perfectly OK, if that's what you want. This is where we're going to disagree. I always saw Linux and the OSS community as somewhat an ethical stance as well. The MS and Apple's of the world are not good for OS development, and are guilty of some ethically wonkey actions. To combat this Linux must be viable enough to change their practices (i.e. a threat).

      OK, I partly agree. MS in particular and Apple to a lesser extent are driven by motives which are, in the end, inimical to the interests of users. Basically both want to lock in their users and turn them into perpetual sources of repeat revenue. There is an ethical case for providing an alternative that breaks monopoly power and gives users choice. But I don't think that Linux - at least in it's present development model - either is or can be that alternative.

      Why not? Linux is build by geeks for geeks. The needs that a geek has of an operating system are different from the needs a non-computer-literate user has of an operating system, and I think it would be difficult to the point of impossible to design one user environment which suited both. But if you design a user interface which suits the ordinary user and doesn't suit the geeks, the geeks won't use it so it won't cause them itches so they won't maintain it... so it will die.

      I think that is inevitable. I think it is in the nature of the software ecosystem. I'd like to be wrong, but I don't think I am. I think if you want a 'user friendly' - to mom and pop users - user environment, someone is going to have to pay to build it, and to pay to maintain it.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    10. Re:Why would they even bother? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I agree with you.

      I don't, though, think that making a powerful OS precludes making an easy to use one. OS X comes close to this, with all of its shiny features (and most of its aesthetics at least started as functional) hiding a nice, albeit slightly gimped, BSD/Unix terminal underneath. I'm not saying the internals should be this obfuscated (my GF has been using a Mac all her life, and didn't know OS X even had a terminal).

      I think that is inevitable. I think it is in the nature of the software ecosystem. I'd like to be wrong, but I don't think I am. I think if you want a 'user friendly' - to mom and pop users - user environment, someone is going to have to pay to build it, and to pay to maintain it.

      You may be right. But the Mozilla Foundation, and Ubuntu does give me some hope. All it takes is a group of geeks to make it a pet project. I doubt that a majority of the community will care too much, outside of the point of pride issue.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    11. Re:Why would they even bother? by J.Y.Kelly · · Score: 1

      If a shopper wants to choose between 3 wifi cards, do the Linux developers bother to tell the shopper quickly and concisely which of those will work??

      Hardware compatibility is a continually shifting target so a definitive list is difficult to maintain. It has been tried before but never with much success. I know Fedora have projects trying to use the smolt project to get people to report which hardware they have works and which is problematic.

      WiFi cards are especially problematic. There have been several cases of manufacturers changing the underlying hardware used on a Wifi dongle whilst keeping exactly the same model number. Suddenly you have two identically labelled pieces of hardware, one of which works under Linux and one of which doesn't, and there's no way to tell without buying it and plugging it in.

    12. Re:Why would they even bother? by w000t · · Score: 1

      please, speak for yourself... there's plenty of people contributing to Linux in particular and F/OSS in general who are actually working a lot to make it as user friendly as possible (which doesn't have to mean non geek friendly).

  29. Trigger? by buravirgil · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    i hear the term 'trigger' from as educated circles as the Supreme Court

    Trigger is a horse
    Trigger is a causal construct
    Trigger has dubious connotation

    Precipitate is a correlation of a field and a force

    Forces are expressions of an interruption of a
    field's equilibrium

    many fields can be contained, many cannot
    many forces are introduced, many are arrived by
    a stress around a contained field

    a "trigger' is either directly linked or "acts" from a balance of links

    a trigger is a node and behaves to a prioritized
    link or balances input from many

    either heirarchically prioritized or given equity

    the variable of a trigger is clock timing...

    how many times around a value will be "seen" and by what order

    --
    Would were! Should is! Could be! And live a hundred times three.
  30. once again it happens.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember this happening last year? or the year before when ubuntu was coming out a with a new release that the kernel was updated just a few days before hand. so they didn't have it in the release.

  31. Linux creator by mebrahim · · Score: 0

    Linus is not "Linux creator"; he is just one of the many...

  32. Get it right please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux is not an OS - it's a kernel, and to keep calling it an OS confuses people who don't know better and pisses people off who do know better.

  33. Apple? OSX? 3d acceleration??? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Granted X11 has improved in the areas of 3d acceleration and such. But compared to OS X it is lacking

    If Apple cared about 3d acceleration in OS X, they'd put decent graphics cards into their computers.

    They don't.

    In fact they sell you graphics cards which are crap for 3d applications, compared to what is available.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  34. Very disapointed.. by SlashDev · · Score: 0

    .. not to see ipt_limit in this Kernel version. ipt_limit allows IPTABLES to limit connections per IP address. Currently this must be done via patch-o-matic.

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
  35. Re:Black monolith by SlashDev · · Score: 1, Interesting

    In order for the module to be loaded, the Kernel has to be aware of it. It isn't, it has to be patched.

    --

    TOP DSLR Cameras Reviews of the top DSLRs
  36. Volkswagen by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    1.10. Controller area network (CAN) protocol support

    Recommended LWN article: "PF_CAN"

    From the "Controller Area Network" Wikipedia article: Controller Area Network (CAN or CAN-bus) is a computer network protocol and bus standard designed to allow microcontrollers and devices to communicate with each other and without a host computer.. This implementation has been contributed by Volkswagen.


    It would be interesting to know where Volkswagen use this in Linux. Can I buy a car "powered by Linux"?
    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
    1. Re:Volkswagen by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1
      --
      Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  37. Awesome! by fenix849 · · Score: 1

    Finally i can have suspend support for the sis 650 in my travelmate (yeah its acer crap but i couldn't argue with free).

  38. Oblig simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mayor Quimby: To make sure this wall is completely idiot-proof... Cletus! Try to dump something in the lake.
    Cletus: Okay.
    [tries to go to the lake to dump a possum but keeps hitting the wall]
    Cletus: I can't. I - I simply can't.