Linux 2.6.26 Out

diegocgteleline.es writes "After three months, Linux 2.6.26 has been released. It adds support for read-only bind mounts, x86 PAT (Page Attribute Tables), PCI Express ASPM (Active State Power Management), ports of KVM to IA64, S390 and PPC, other KVM improvements including basic paravirtualization support, preliminary support of the future 802.11s wireless mesh standard, much improved webcam support thanks to a driver for UVC devices, a built-in memory tester, a kernel debugger, BDI statistics and parameters exposure in /sys/class/bdi, a new /proc/PID/mountinfo file for more accurate information about mounts, per-process securebits, device white-list for containers users, support for the OLPC, some new drivers and many small improvements. Here is the full list of changes."

Comments

init post

[Anonymous Coward]

first

Re:init post

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, still no token ring support. And it's distributed under the GPL License. I think I'll recommend all my fortune 500 clients stick with windows server 2003.

Re:init post

[Anonymous Conrad]

Ugh, still no token ring support.

It had token ring support circa 2000 and you can probably resurrect the drivers if you need it.

OTOH if you're still using Token Ring you probably have Madge or Olicom cards whereas the best Linux support was for chipsets like the IBM Olympic.

Re:init post

[Anonymous Coward]

I already put my Fortune 500 clients on Arcnet. Still supported in the mainline kernel! YEAH!

Re:init post

[Ihmhi]

Wooooooooooooosh

Kernel debugger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, it took them 10+ years to implement a kernel debugger? (what's a kernel debugger anyway?)

Re:Kernel debugger?

[HvitRavn]

I found this article on Wikipedia but it doesn't say much except "A kernel debugger is a debugger present in some kernels to ease debugging and kernel development by the kernel developers". Can someone whip out a cluebat please?

Re:Kernel debugger?

[dahitokiri]

If I'm understanding correctly, I believe they're talking about a mode in which you can debug kernel level events. You have a client PC (the debuggee) and the server PC (the debugger). They're usually connected over a serial cable.

Re:Kernel debugger?

[something_wicked_thi]

A kernel debugger is a program you can run from one computer, generally via a serial patch cable or some such, that lets you step through the kernel code running on another computer. It's like a normal debugger, but remote.

Linux has had kernel debuggers for years, but Linus never wanted it in mainline, so it was always a patch, and sometimes didn't work on the latest kernel. Now, it's part of the kernel (I don't see any links to why Linus changed his mind, but you might be able to find something on LKML if you look).

Anyway, I think this is good news. I understand why Linus never wanted a debugger in the kernel, but I disagree with him on two points. First, even developers who have a good understanding of the code can get work done faster if they use a debugger. Using a debugger does not automatically relegate you to someone who doesn't have a good understanding of things, as Linus would have you believe (i.e. there's a difference between needing a debugger and being more productive with a debugger).

Second, there are a lot of people these days who just fix bugs, or just want to debug their own tiny kernel patch. I.e. people who don't have a full understanding of the system but who need to get something done. It's good that these people are now first-class citizens. They likely will never write a new kernel subsystem, but maybe they'll fix a few bugs and make life better for the rest of us.

Re:Kernel debugger?

[Anonymous Coward]

Linux is a jackass who makes bizarre decisions then, after bing repeatedly proved wrong, shuts the fuck up and changes his mind with no explanation (that would be like admitting he was wrong). I don't know why theo gets so much e-ink when linus is twice the douchebag.

Re:Kernel debugger?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is entirely true.

Re:Kernel debugger?

[SiggyTheViking]

Can someone whip out a cluebat please?

<WHACK />
There. Did that help?

Re:Kernel debugger?

[Anonymous Coward]

"A kernel debugger is a debugger present in some kernels to ease debugging and kernel development by the kernel developers".

Wow! I didn't know Captain Obvious writes articles for Wikipedia...

Re:Kernel debugger?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

XML tags are lowercase.

Re:Kernel debugger?

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

at least he didn't kill anyone! :)

Re:Kernel debugger?

[Software]

XML tags are lowercase.

Wrong. XML is case-sensitive, not lowercase. XHTML uses lowercase XML elements, but in general XML elements are not lowercase only.

Re:Kernel debugger?

[Anonymous Coward]

<WHACK />

Excellent XHTML syntax. I wondered when it would catch on

Re:Kernel debugger?

[WithLove]

Well, he mainly just edits them. See?

Does it disturb anyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

It adds support for read-only bind mounts, x86 PAT (Page Attribute Tables), PCI Express ASPM (Active State Power Management), ports of KVM to IA64, S390 and PPC, other KVM improvements including basic paravirtualization support, preliminar support of the future 802.11s wireless mesh standard, much improved webcam support thanks to a driver for UVC devices, a built-in memory tester, a kernel debugger, BDI statistics and parameters exposure in /sys/class/bdi,

Does it disturb anyone else how many words the bsdm & linux kernel community have in common? (this is not a troll).

Frankly, I blame IBM.

Re:Does it disturb anyone else?

[something_wicked_thi]

Nah, SATA gets rid of all that. No more master and slave. Now, we submit to the controller.

Re:Does it disturb anyone else?

[Eudial]

It adds support for read-only bind mounts, x86 PAT (Page Attribute Tables), PCI Express ASPM (Active State Power Management), ports of KVM to IA64, S390 and PPC, other KVM improvements including basic paravirtualization support, preliminar support of the future 802.11s wireless mesh standard, much improved webcam support thanks to a driver for UVC devices, a built-in memory tester, a kernel debugger, BDI statistics and parameters exposure in /sys/class/bdi,

Does it disturb anyone else how many words the bsdm & linux kernel community have in common? (this is not a troll).

Frankly, I blame IBM.

Well, the kernel sources are (or were) pretty explicit in their sexual deviations. I remember several occurrences of the following comment: /* Fuck me gently with a chainsaw... */ in the 2.4 tree.

Re:Does it disturb anyone else?

[value_added]

Nah, SATA gets rid of all that. No more master and slave. Now, we submit to the controller.

Actually, submitting to the controller is redundant. I guess that makes the above a joke within a joke for those who thought otherwise. From the relevant Wiki article:

In fact, the drivers in the host operating system perform the necessary arbitration and serialization, and each drive's controller operates independently. Both are really "slaves" to the driver in the host OS.

And because SATA presents the ATA interface to the system (the difference being how the chips are connected to the drive), you could say there's an additional joke in there, but one only those using SCSI would find funny.

Re:Does it disturb anyone else?

[Bloodoflethe]

And because SATA presents the ATA interface to the system (the difference being how the chips are connected to the drive), you could say there's an additional joke in there, but one only those using SCSI would find funny.

Too true.

Re:Does it disturb anyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I blame Sun.

Re:Does it disturb anyone else?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't anyone going to blame George Bush?

Re:Does it disturb anyone else?

[something_wicked_thi]

Actually, submitting to the controller is redundant. I guess that makes the above a joke within a joke for those who thought otherwise. From the relevant Wiki article:

Not entirely true. The drive also has a controller to support NCQ, which means the drive can change the order of the commands submitted by the "master", which means that the "master" is, in a sense, submissive.

Which just goes to show that, with SATA, we finally have equal rights for slaves and masters. Isn't progress great?

Re:Does it disturb anyone else?

[Cramer]

Funny. I remember that comment... and others like it. The more time spent working with oddball hardware, the more you feel like someone is screwing you with a chainsaw.

Re:Does it disturb anyone else?

[kwabbles]

On my 2.6.24 box: :/usr/src$ egrep -ir "( fuck)|( shit)" *

linux-headers-2.6.24-16/include/asm-mips/mipsprom.h:/* More PROM shit. Probably has to do with VME RMW cycles??? */
linux-headers-2.6.24-16/include/asm-sparc64/system.h: /* If you fuck with this, update ret_from_syscall code too. */ \
linux-headers-2.6.24-16/include/linux/netfilter/xt_limit.h: /* Ugly, ugly fucker. */
linux-headers-2.6.24-16/include/asm-m68k/sun3ints.h:/* master list of VME vectors -- don't fuck with this */
linux-headers-2.6.24-16/include/asm-cris/arch-v32/spinlock.h: * writers) in interrupt handlers someone fucked up and we'd dead-lock
linux-headers-2.6.24-16-generic/include/asm-mips/mipsprom.h:/* More PROM shit. Probably has to do with VME RMW cycles??? */
linux-headers-2.6.24-16-generic/include/asm-sparc64/system.h: /* If you fuck with this, update ret_from_syscall code too. */ \
linux-headers-2.6.24-16-generic/include/linux/netfilter/xt_limit.h: /* Ugly, ugly fucker. */
egrep: linux-headers-2.6.24-16-generic/include/linux/linux: No such file or directory
linux-headers-2.6.24-16-generic/include/asm-m68k/sun3ints.h:/* master list of VME vectors -- don't fuck with this */
egrep: linux-headers-2.6.24-16-generic/include/asm/asm-x86: No such file or directory
egrep: linux-headers-2.6.24-16-generic/include/asm-x86/asm-x86: No such file or directory
linux-headers-2.6.24-16-generic/include/asm-cris/arch-v32/spinlock.h: * writers) in interrupt handlers someone fucked up and we'd dead-lock

Re:Does it disturb anyone else?

[Nethemas the Great]

Well, the kernel sources are (or were) pretty explicit in their sexual deviations.

Hasn't changed (as of 2.6.24)...

Documentation/DocBook/kernel-locking.tmpl: If you don't see why, please stay the fuck away from my code.
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mtrr/generic.c:/* Some BIOS's are fucked and don't set all MTRRs the same! */
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/cpufreq/powernow-k7.c: * Some Athlon laptops have really fucked PST tables.
arch/sparc64/kernel/binfmt_aout32.c: /* Fuck me plenty... */
arch/sparc/kernel/sunos_ioctl.c: /* Binary compatibility is good American knowhow fuckin' up. */
arch/sparc/kernel/ptrace.c:/* Fuck me gently with a chainsaw... */
arch/sparc/kernel/process.c: /* fuck me plenty */
arch/sparc/kernel/head.S: /* XXX Fucking Cypress... */
arch/ppc/syslib/ppc405_pci.c: * the kernel try to remap our BAR #1 and fuck up bus
arch/parisc/kernel/sys_parisc.c:/* Fucking broken ABI */
arch/mips/sgi-ip22/ip22-setup.c: * fucking with the memory controller because it needs to know the
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c: * IOC3 is fucked fucked beyond believe ... Don't even give the
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c: * IOC3 is fucked fucked beyond believe ... Don't even give the
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c: * IOC3 is fucked fucked beyond believe ... Don't try to access
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c: * IOC3 is fucked fucked beyond believe ... Don't even give the
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c: * IOC3 is fucked fucked beyond believe ... Don't even give the
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c: * IOC3 is fucked fucked beyond believe ... Don't try to access
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c: * IOC3 is fucked fucked beyond believe ... Don't even give the
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c: * IOC3 is fucked fucked beyond believe ... Don't even give the
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c: * IOC3 is fucked fucked beyond believe ... Don't try to access
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c: * IOC3 is fucked fucked beyond believe ... Don't even give the
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c: * IOC3 is fucked fucked beyond believe ... Don't even give the
arch/mips/pci/ops-bridge.c: * IOC3 is fucked fucked beyond believe ... Don't try to access
arch/mips/kernel/irixioctl.c: * irixioctl.c: A fucking mess...
arch/mips/kernel/irixelf.c:#if 0 /* XXX No fucking way dude... */
drivers/watchdog/shwdt.c: * brain-damage, it's managed to fuck things up one step further..
drivers/scsi/qlogicpti.h:/* Am I fucking pedantic or what? */
drivers/scsi/NCR53C9x.c: * how bad the target and/or ESP fucks things up.
drivers/scsi/NCR53C9x.c: /* Be careful, we could really get fucked during synchronous
drivers/net/sunhme.c:/* Only Sun can take such nice parts and fuck up the programming interface
drivers/net/sunhme.c: /* This card is _fucking_ hot... */
drivers/mtd/mtd_blkdevs.c: registered, to prevent the link/init ordering from fucking
drivers/media/video/bt819.c: BUG? Why does turning the chroma comb on fuck up color?
drivers/ide/pci/cmd640.c: * These chips are basically fucked by design, and getting this driver
fs/binfmt_aout.c: /* Fuck me plenty... */
include/linux/netfilter/xt_limit.h: /* Ugly, ugly fucker. */
include/asm-sparc64/system.h: /* If you fuck with this, update ret_from_syscall code too. */ \
include/asm-m68k/sun3ints.h:/* master list of VME vectors -- don't fuck with this */
include/asm-cris/arch-v32/spinlock.h: * writers) in interrupt handlers someone fucked up and we'd dead-lock
lib/vsprintf.c: * Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up :-)
net/netfilter/nf_queue.c:

Ah but does it run Linux?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wondering... ;)

Re:Ah but does it run Linux?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes it does, and I can even imagine a beowulf cluster of them!

Re:Ah but does it run Linux?!?

[phobos13013]

These changes will now make 2008, THE year for the linux desktop!

Re:Ah but does it run Linux?!?

[Jellybob]

Sure, just install Xen, and then you can indeed make it run Linux.

If you're feeling really masochistic, you could even create a beowulf cluster of Linux boxes, running Linux, with Linux running on them. /me watches his head explode.

Re:Ah but does it run Linux?!?

[debatem1]

I actually do this. As part of the networking lab for my school I set up a load balanced cluster of physical boxes to run virtual machines in arbitrary network configurations. It was harder than it needed to be.

Re:Ah but does it run Linux?!?

[Atti K.]

I, for one, welcome our new... oh wait...

Re:Ah but does it run Linux?!?

[Monsuco]

These changes will now make 2008, THE year for the linux desktop!

A while back, somebody told me it would be in 2007, or was it 2006? Hmm.

Re:Ah but does it run Linux?!?

[samjam]

Bah! thats nothing!

My laptop blew it's mind when I booted the linux partition of my laptop, started vmware and booted the linux partition of my laptop. It fsck'd itself pretty badly at that point.

Now my vmware has a floppy disk image with grub to make sure it can only boot windows.

Sam

Yes,

[Anonymous Coward]

But does it run Linux?

Re:Yes,

[dogdick]

Does it run linux!? Of course not in Soviet Russia Linux runs it!!!!!!!!

I for one welcome our new linux overlords!!!!
My eyes! The goggles! They do nothing!

FOR FUCKS SAKE NO MORE MEMES[CONNECTION LOST]

Re:Yes,

[denzacar]

You forgot this one.

1. Create free OS
2. Update it
3. ???
4. Profit!

Also... no mention of Beowulf clusters, Natalie Portman and many others...

Re:Yes,

[HungryHobo]

1. Create free OS 2. Update it 3. Sell Support for free OS. 4. Profit!

Re:Yes,

[TheMidnight]

All your kernels are belong to us.
im in ur kernelz open-sourcin ur code
Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down, never gonna run around and desert the kernel.
THIS IS LINUX!

Intelfb still broke

[CRCulver]

They have still not enabled mode switching in the intelfb driver on laptops, meaning that I am forced to use ugly, unaccelerated VESA instead of the right driver for this sytem. This bug has been reported on kernel dev mailing lists and forums for at least three years, but no one with the skills seems to want to fix it.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Anonymous Coward]

I was actually going to this thread to say "So, what did they break?"

Since well, it's Linux after all.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Nutria]

They have still not enabled mode switching in the intelfb driver on laptops

Do any desktops really need a fb, or is it only so that there can be pretty pictures during boot, before [xkg]dm starts?

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Viol8]

Thats because frame buffers were one of those seemed-a-good-idea-at-the-time. But that time is passed.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[MBGMorden]

Well, while I am happy as can be to use the VESA fb, writing of a bug in an existing driver simply because "no one needs it" (when as the original poster has demonstrated a desire for it) is just a bit disingenuous. Software developers tend to make really poor judges when it comes to features that users need. If you want to develop for an audience other than yourself, the best strategy is to listen to what the users ask for, and then implement that, assuming it doesn't break anything and that it's possible.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[samkass]

Well, users aren't always right about what they want either, especially when they request specific technical implementation details. The parent poster didn't say what they wanted to actually do or accomplish, just listed a specific technical item that hasn't been fixed. When "users" start asking for implementation details, you're probably better off either not doing anything or getting to the heart of the user's actual needs before implementing anything.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the sort of behavior that separates most Linux distros from Mac OS X. I'm not even trying to be flamebait here.

Turning around this way of thinking is what I've been trying to do at the Ubuntu team for a while, but it's difficult because Linux developers are more interested in fixing other problems. Which isn't bad, of course, but it's really this sort of cleanliness that deserved Apple the "it just works" slogan, and it'd be nice if Linux distros could do the same.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Faulty assumption: develop for an audience other than yourself

A lot of developers I know only do as much coding as necessary to do/fix whatever they are having a problem with. If you have a problem with it, fix it yourself or give incentives to someone else to do it for you.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Chemisor]

> Thats because frame buffers were one of those seemed-a-good-idea-at-the-time. But that time is passed.

Well, gee, that's exactly what I think about X. I'd much rather get rid of the huge bloaty X.Org and work on the framebuffer console, as I am doing right now. If there was kernel mode switching support, I'd actually upgrade my video card again. Currently my nVidia 7600 is the best one supported (correct me if I'm wrong). I would certainly like to get something newer to play Windows games faster, but if I can't still have my framebuffer console, the deal is off.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[alan_dershowitz]

My Mac doesn't have any character video modes, so the only way you can get a console without X is virtually via a FB. Unless I'm misunderstanding how this works.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Anonymous Coward]

It's coming in 2.6.27 along with the GEM branch that was merged into master. Read Phoronix if you're into this sort of thing.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Nutria]

My Mac doesn't have any character video modes, so the only way you can get a console without X is virtually via a FB.

So that's one good reason desktop users need an fb!

Re:Intelfb still broke

[MBGMorden]

I'll make not qualm with that. I AM that type of developer. However, the Linux kernel group is not. The fact remains that if you wish to develop software with the intention of widely distributing it for general use, then you have to pay some heed to the users who will be using it.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[rbanffy]

It's actually useful if you, for some reason, need to drop to a text console and do something there (like restarting a firefox that started running amok an hour ago and now has all the system resources taken). I like my console to use the exact resolution of the laptop screen so that there are no weird pixels and, as a nice plus, the screen can fit a lot more text.

Having a 900x1024 screen and a text mode that's about 480x640 pixels and 24x80 is kind of ugly.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Noone wants to fix it because intel won't even support some of these chipsets anymore. It hit end of lifecycle because it's buggy and messes up even with intel's own drivers in windows sometimes.

Seems like you've spent a lot of effort complaining about the fact that it's not working as you would like. Have you tried to organize people to fix this? No one with the skills seems to want to fix it. You're absolutely right. What do you propose?

Re:Intelfb still broke

[mrsteveman1]

Thats a low standard for things, if we are reducing everything to "need" then lots of things can go.

In any case 'pretty pictures' is a perfectly valid reason even though there are other more important uses of the framebuffer. You can trivialize it if you like but the fact remains, the hardware supports framebuffers, so should the driver.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Anonymous Coward]

MacOSX has a strictly controlled hardware platform. It's orders of magnitude easier to make MacOSX run on the limited set of hardware MacOSX officially support than making either linux or windows run on god knows what. I guarantee you, if I dictated the hardware for my linux distribution, support for the supported hardware would always be essentially perfect and it would "Just Work".

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Knuckles]

Point taken about a nicer console, but your example really sucks :)

Re:Intelfb still broke

[rbanffy]

That's because your Firefox never decided to take over your computer while you were at lunch.

Last time it happened, I couldn't unlock the screen saver.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't count how many times I've searched for "how to..." and found someone being told not how to do what he's asking, but why he really wants to do something else. Very frustrating..., especially when what's being asked is entirely possible.

Your comment isn't what I just described, but the attitude behind it is the same I think.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[dpilot]

I hate "it just works" as it is usually implemented, because when "it just works" that really means only 70/80/90% of the time. (I'll admit that it's a moving target, generally getting better.) But the real problem is when "it just works" doesn't, it gets in your way big-time and keeps you from: a-getting it working your self, b-figuring out what really happened, so you can fix it, etc. "It just works" can be done correctly - leaving the option of running commands and editing config files yourself - but it seems like it generally isn't. I also acknowledge the need for "it just works", I just wish they'd do it the right way, without turning the whole thing into "Windows Black Magic."

Re:Intelfb still broke

[samkass]

No, my attitude is just the opposite. A "how to" is asking about accomplishing a certain task, not for a specific implementation of a specific technical feature. How tos that just tell users why they shouldn't want what they want is only slightly less frustrating to me than how to's that tell users how easy things are. (Whether a step is "easy" or not is not an analysis a document writer should be making. If it's easy for the user, it's wasted space, and if it's not, it's just frustrating and demeaning.)

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Knuckles]

I meant that to kill and restart a process, any console is good enough.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Anonymous Coward]

if it bugs you that much put out a bounty on it. who knows, you might get even more interested parties willing to kick money into the kitty for the bounty.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[ladoga]

Do any desktops really need a fb, or is it only so that there can be pretty pictures during boot, before [xkg]dm starts?

Sometimes I like to use my ultraportable without launching X.

High resolution fb is far from useless as you can fit more lines of text into the screen.
Also it's nice to be able to run videos with framebuffer output driver.

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Tried rotating the screen 90 degrees?

Re:Intelfb still broke

[Fujisawa Sensei]

They have still not enabled mode switching in the intelfb driver on laptops

Do any desktops really need a fb, or is it only so that there can be pretty pictures during boot, before [xkg]dm starts?

Somebody outside the kernel team is actually trying to use the functionality, its none of anybody's business as to the "why" or "need". If its broken, its a bug. So it needs to be fixed.

Clever new tools for kernel config

[FeatureBug]

What I would like to see more emphasis on in future kernels is a discussion of possible clever new tools and methods for configuring the thousands of kernel config options. None of the existing in-kernel-tree or out-of-tree config tools seems ideal.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[Zarhan]

Aye - would be great if there would be tool that I could eg. say "Ok, right now, at this moment, I have all my hot-pluggable USB/PCI devices plugged in, please detect and configure the options as needed". After all, that's what I do with a new comp: use lspci and similar tools to find out what's in the guts of the machine and then set options appropriately in menuconfig.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[repvik]

um... you have a distro that doesn't hotplug all the necessary modules for you?

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[aster_ken]

Here's an old but fun method of configuring your kernel:

The Kernel Adventure Configurator

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[diegocgteleline.es]

Thats what udev does. And it does it without even recompiling the kernel - it works with standard kernels. Awesome!

Seriously, better config tools are not needed because normal people does NOT need to compile the kernel. Compiling your kernel "just because" it's like recompiling libc. You CAN do it, but not many people does it and people who does do not need better config tools.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[nawcom]

You aren't following at all; the concept is that the modules havent been compiled and linked yet. More classic development distributions like Slackware don't provide 2 gigs of precompiled modules for different kernels (it usually comes with enough to pick up your hard drive, chipsets, etc and boot. That's where the kernel source comes in. you take 3 minutes and set it up and another 3 minutes (or hours, if you prefer the good-ol 386) to compile it. It's always been a ton faster than fighting with precompiled module dependency hell. So custom compiling the kernel requires experience and skill, something a good ol' linux user has and loves.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[pbhj]

um... you have a distro that doesn't hotplug all the necessary modules for you?

I think he means he doesn't want to compile/build all modules, just the ones that the system will use.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[nawcom]

but not many people does it and people who does do not need better config tools.

Udev requires you having the needed modules. other than specific source tarballs, the place where you compile those modules that udev autoloads is *rolls drums* in the kernel source! Again, you're assuming that the distribution came with every single module in existence that's been precompiled.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[slashflood]

Clever, but takes some time:

1. make randconfig
2. Compile, install and boot the kernel
3. If your system doesn't boot or lacks a driver, goto 1.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[humdinger70]

You forgot one...

4. Profit!!!

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[dmckeon]

After my last round of wrestling with video drivers,
I'd settle for a multi-step process:

        install new distro
        plug in all optional hardware, devices, whatever
        boot an 'inventory' kernel
        mount all desired file-system types
        start any unusual drivers or processes

        direct 'inventory' kernel to
                "detect and configure the options as needed"
                        for all the hardware or other configuration
                        sensitive stuff that is visible, mounted, etc.

        manually tweak kernel config if needed
        compile new kernel & any modules needed
        boot to new kernel
        enjoy

I'd settle for any method that lets the non-kernel-guru
user focus on the few config items that might need
changing, instead of facing 2900-odd CONFIG_ variables,
many for obscure hardware that won't be found in most
systems. Yes, the settings need to be available for
people who do have that hardware, but they should not
require decisions by people who do not have that hardware.

To put that in a way more Slashdot readers might remember,
I'd like a tool or specialized kernel that could determine
from the hardware, without having to poll the user,
the appropriate settings for:

        CONFIG_ATHLETIC_JOCK_STRAP=

        CONFIG_ATHLETIC_SPORTS_BRA=

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[drinkypoo]

Don't we all? I had to manually load ipmi modules under Debian Hardy 8.04.1 on my IBM eServer 325 :P Also coretemp driver is not loaded by default on my Compaq nw9440. Both of these are just monitoring but shouldn't they load when I need them?

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[Zero__Kelvin]

"That's where the kernel source comes in. you take 3 minutes and set it up and another 3 minutes (or hours, if you prefer the good-ol 386) to compile it."

Either:

1. You have never configured and compiled a Linux kernel before, or ...

2. You are the absolute worlds worst estimator of temporal resource requirements on the planet.

There are 1155 options to configure:

[Zero__Kelvin@stormbringer linux-2.6.git]$ git branch
master
* v2.6.26-deeppurple-eldd
v2.6.26-rc7-deeppurple
v2.6.26-rc8-deeppurple
[Zero__Kelvin@strombringer linux-2.6.git]$ grep CONFIG .config | grep -v \# | wc -l
1155

Granted a make oldconfig will give you a baseline with which to work, but you still need to sift through all of those and verify you have what you want. 3 minutes isn't enought time to verify the networking options.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[dgatwood]

What would be ideal would be to have new device detection that:

• Knows where the kernel source lives.
• Knows how to edit the configuration file.
• Knows which drivers to enable to support the device (based on device/vendor ID hints stored in some plist file or something).
• Knows how to invoke the compiler.

You get the idea. :-)

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[ibanezist00]

So... is that called "Bogoconfig"?

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[Zarhan]

Actually this might be something to go for. Just have a completely modular kernel, everything as modules, then after boot you'd just check which modules actually were loaded and somehow map that to kernel configuration options.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[ArsonSmith]

maybe something like a:

# make currentsys_config

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[Samah]

Clever, but takes some time:

1. make randconfig
2. Compile, install and boot the kernel
3. If your system doesn't boot or lacks a driver, goto 1.

Careful now, haven't you ever heard of the infinite monkeys theorem?
If you start making random files you're going to eventually end up with an audio book of the entire works of Shakespeare.

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[dpilot]

No, he got it right. Keep in mind that as he structured it, it's practically an infinite loop. Step 4 was eliminated in the optimizer as "never executed."

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[zsau]

Um, how do you make a kernel compile in three minutes? I'm well and truly past the 386-era with my most recent purchase a high-end laptop earlier this year with more RAM than I know what to do with and plentiful CPU power but if a kernel compile took three minutes I'd be spending the next twenty working out what went wrong...

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[timbo234]

More classic development distributions like Slackware don't provide 2 gigs of precompiled modules for different kernels (it usually comes with enough to pick up your hard drive, chipsets, etc and boot.

2Gigs!!! There must be something seriously wrong with the Slackware kernel packaging!
The Mandriva kernel package on my laptop takes up under 35MB ON DISK (du -sh) and includes all the modules I'd ever need.

Why for the love of god go through all that pain and inconvenience to save a few megs of disk space?

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[ZerdZerd]

With Quantum computing we could do this in O(n) time!

Re:Clever new tools for kernel config

[agbinfo]

+1

802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware?

[leuk_he]

Just curious,

If you have compatible wlan hardware like Atheros, would it be possible to configure a mesh network on them? Or do you need special 11s compatible hardware?

I know the OLPC has specialized hardware for this.

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware?

[Shadow_139]

Have a look into DD-WRT: http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Mesh_Networking_with_OLSR

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware?

[leuk_he]

I guess that is a yes? Or yes, sometimes? THat still does not give the state of that project.

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware?

[Klaus_1250]

802.11s != OLSRv2 . 802.11s seems to work at the MAC layer, whereas OLSRv2 works at the IP layer. They are not the same. There are quite a few mesh networking protocols out there and in development, but I haven't seen a clear winner yet.

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware?

[kitgerrits]

dd-wrt is a special firmware for Linksys WRT54G (and compatible) embedded routers.
Chancec are that someone has written it, but I'm not sure it will run on any other type of kernel/hardware.
At best you'll be able to port the functionality to x86 hardware and generic (or caompatible) network cards.
At worst, you'll have a bunch of gibberich that only makes sense if you know the peculiarities of the hardware.

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware?

[HRogge]

802.11s is designed for small mesh networks (I think the recent draft talks about a maximum of 32 nodes).

OLSR is used in much larger networks (at the moment 700+ nodes for the www.olsr.org implementation).

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware?

[gradedcheese]

It's part of the mac80211 layer, so it in theory supports any mac80211 driver, that is a 'soft MAC' WiFi chipset. There are minor driver changes required to support mesh (basically adding mesh beacons) and right now the zd1211rw and B43 drivers work. We have more details here:
http://o11s.org/trac
B43 is your best bet at the moment, if you have a few of those, give the HOWTO on the o11s website a try and you can have your own mesh network.

Eventually other soft-MAC chipsets can work, such as Intel's iwlwifi, Ralink, etc. At the moment beaconing is broken in rt2x000 so Ralink won't work, but that will probably be fixed soon.

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware?

[Klaus_1250]

DD-WRT runs on a huge number of devices. See http://www.dd-wrt.com/wiki/index.php/Supported_Devices . Ever since LinkSys started plucking the WRT54G, other hardware has become much more interesting.

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware?

[kitgerrits]

That's an impressive HCL!
I ran DD-WRT once (on a WRT54GL), but my Wl500GP runs Oleg and my NSLU2 runs stock firmware.
Both devices already do all I need them to do (scheduled remote backup and uPNP/NFS, respectively).

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware?

[atamido]

The Wikipedia article says:

802.11s defines a default mandatory routing protocol (Hybrid Wireless Mesh Protocol, or HWMP), yet allows vendors to operate using alternate protocols. HWMP is inspired by a combination of AODV (RFC 3561) and tree-based routing. An alternate protocol may be based on OLSR (RFC 3626).

To me that sounds like OLSR can be used as part of 802.11s. Would there still be node limits in this case?

Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware?

[HRogge]

I don't know, because the I have yet to see a finished documentation about 802.11s.

Theoretically 802.11s is able to run OLSR. I think the node limit was introduced because the protocol should run on hardware (with VERY limited resources).

Another advantage of a layer 3 routing protocol is that it can be easily ported to multiple operation systems. Olsrd (as an example) is available on Linux, BSD, OSX (including a port to a hacked I-Phone) and Windows.

but...

[Anonymous Coward]

does it run photoshop yet?

Re:but...

[Darkness404]

Yes, if you run it in WINE.

Re:but...

[Tanktalus]

Yes.

(Seriously, my wife used the photoshop trial version for a month and loved it. I asked her to spend a month on gimp just to see if the "free" version was good enough. She couldn't be happier - she can do digitial scrapbooking with all sorts of cool effects without spending money. And it's been over six months now, and she hasn't once brought up a desire to go back to photoshop.)

Re:but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I spend a month on your wife to see if I like it?

Re:but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, you like herpes right and not having food ready when you arrive home right?

Real writeable NTFS?

[redelm]

OK, 2.6.26 is out, and kudos for all the good work. But where is a truly writeable NTFS? Many larger USB drives are shipping with this pre-installed, so true write support is needed in the kernel.

AFAIK, current kernel "write" support does not including creating files or directors (presumably just modifying/appending to existing files).

I've tried ntfsprogs, but not got it to compile x86_64.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ntfs-3g.org/

Not sure why it isn't in the kernel. But works great for me.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[aliquis]

Here: http://www.ntfs-3g.org/

Why is it needed in the kernel?

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[dahitokiri]

Try NTFS-3G.

Also, blame Microsoft for not releasing the technical specs behind the FS. Reverse-engineering a filesystem (especially one that MS likes to change often) isn't exactly easy.

Finally, you can always reformat "larger USB drives" into a FS that's more efficient (ext3, reiserfs).

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Gothmolly]

Careful, some of those other filesystems really kill performance.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Anonymous Coward]

The in kernel support for ntfs is an ancient relic. Use fuse and ntfs-3g instead. Fedora, Mandriva and Ubuntu even have it preinstalled.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[plasticsquirrel]

You aren't stuck with NTFS on them. You can always reformat a flash drive as a large FAT32 volume (or any other FS) from Linux. Windows can use a large FAT32 FS, but it can't create one, so Linux can be used as a workaround. Example command:

$ mkfs.vfat -F 32 /dev/sda1

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[wonkavader]

Old NTFS stuff used to be really, really slow. Is ntfs-3g as fast as other filesystems on Linux, now?

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[kanazir]

Why is this scored insightful? Does anybody here actually is using Linux?

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[plus_M]

You know, this joke has been beaten to death for the past month or so. Can't you lay it to rest?

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Yvan256]

If you really care about performance you won't be using USB anyway.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[AllIGotWasThisNick]

FAT32 has serious file size limitations. Why not just use ext2? http://www.fs-driver.org/

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Hucko]

for me yes, but I only use it for basic storage/compatibility.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Hucko]

There are still people who don't? When did everyone move to Plan9?

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want Microsoft eye-pee in Linux and while I can sympathize with the use case, I can think of many cases where I'd like to avoid NTFS even on a machine running windows. Perhaps you should be asking where is Microsoft and Apple OS native support for XFS and ext3?

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[repvik]

Wooosh!

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[something_wicked_thi]

Not sure why it isn't in the kernel.

Because it doesn't need to be. Really, that's all there is to it. The old one took a long time to develop because kernel code is harder. The only real reason why you'd want an in-kernel driver is if you wanted to boot off of NTFS. The in-kernel driver is good enough to let you do that via a loopback file on the NTFS volume, so the rest can be in userspace.

Apple uses that, too, and I don't hear people complaining about Apple's support for NTFS. People who still complain about this are living in the past, or are hitting one of the few remaining strange corner cases that aren't yet supported (and I very much doubt you are).

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Erikderzweite]

Because ntfs-3g works through fuse - filesystem in userspace. It isn't a kernelspace filesystem.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[X0563511]

or, format your drives as Ext2 (or 3, really the only difference is the journal) and install Ext2 IFS on windows. Works fairly well!

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/15-07/ff_hansreiser

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[nawcom]

I think you misunderstood - the parent was referring to USB flash drives - so there is no need to worry about losing any drive heads. Wait... "larger USB drives" - aww shit, maybe means external magnetic disks. I hate when my quick thinking humor doesn't completely fit the bill.

*rolls up in sock drawer and cries*

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many larger USB drives are shipping with this pre-installed, so true write support is needed in the kernel

mkfs.jfs fixes that problem.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[at_slashdot]

Here: http://www.ntfs-3g.org/

Why is it needed in the kernel?

For performance I guess.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

We can give you closure, if you cut us a deal.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[raynet]

The OP wanted NTFS for USB device so it cannot be a performance issue.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Yvan256]

D'oh!

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Carlos Laviola]

This is an user space driver, but it works perfectly.

http://www.ntfs-3g.org/

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Limburgher]

Well, ok, but I've found mkfs.ext3 /dev/theusbharddriveinquestion to be even better.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[profplump]

Most of the FAT-32 limitations are not relevant on flash drives. The 4 GB per-file limit could be annoying depending on what you're moving around and how big your media is, but other than that I don't see the problem. There are very few flash drives that exceed the 128 GB volume limit of FAT32. Even for USB drives four 128 GB volumes, while perhaps slightly annoying, would let you access the entire drive. And file permissions and ownership are completely irrelevant on removable media.

It would be nice if NTFS support were better, or if Windows supported at least one fairly modern non-MS file system, but honestly most of the whining about the limitations of FAT32 is misplaced. I think a far superior solution to improving NTFS support would be to make portable network drives the replacement for any removable storage bigger than say 32 GB -- just plug it in to the USB or Ethernet port and mount the CIFS volume from whatever OS you like. Then you'd only be dealing with NTFS on dual-boot systems, where it is entirely reasonable to install drivers in Windows.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[drinkypoo]

Okay look, this just isn't funny any more. I mean it. Cut it out already or I'm calling you on the carpet.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is it needed in the kernel?

That's a retarded argument. I have the kernel tree open. I could make that same argument for most of its components.

Why is ALSA in the kernel?
Why is appletalk protocol in the kernel?

etc etc. Linus created a monolithic kernel, so learn to deal with putting stuff in the kernel.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Paradigm_Complex]

The only real reason why you'd want an in-kernel driver is if you wanted to boot off of NTFS

I end up doing a lot of read/write to NTFS from Linux when helping kith and kin with PC problems, and I doubt I'm the only one. I was under the impression that if the driver was in userspace rather than in the kernel the performance would take a hit. I know it's not the most pressing matter, but getting a bit more performance from NTFS read/write is another reason, no? It'd sure be nice to shave every second I can from computer fix-it sessions.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[debatem1]

The difference between a kernel space and user space driver is a big deal for servers, but not for desktop usage. Lets put it this way: I doubt it would save you enough seconds in the course of a lifetime to be worth your time even if it only took 1% of the time it would likely take to write the code

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Many larger USB drives are shipping with this pre-installed, so true write support is needed in the kernel."

Another thing that would work was if Linux had some kind of tool to reformat a partition in the format of the users choice. Then Linux will be really powerful! ...

;-)

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Ant P.]

Don't use ext3 on USB drives, use UDF. It has all the advantages of FAT32 (not having to screw around with UIDs, works everywhere) with none of the microsoft.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[aliquis]

I never said it shouldn't be in the kernel, I asked why he needed to have it in the kernel.

I'd gladly use the same argument for most of the other components as well unless there was a huge performance hit.

I don't like ALSA because it's Linux only, I'd prefer OSS. It's probably there for speed and also because if it wasn't the average Linux users would complain so much / not get it to work.

Because all network stuff is in the kernel?

I don't know if there are any license issues, but maybe it was easier to implement outside it and less tied to the OS, also if it went inside the kernel maybe there would be so many chefs and patches and fiddling around with the code that it would be hard to maintain in a cross-OS fashion.

To have writable NTFS in Linux only covered under GPL and don't have support in lots of other OSes would suck. (That may even be the reason, maybe it is GPL but doesn't infect the kernel so to speak.)

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[aliquis]

http://www.ntfs-3g.org/performance.html

Doesn't look that slow to me, slower than ext3 but eventually faster than XFS and FAT32 for instance, and both of them are within the kernel.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[IBitOBear]

Its not a matter of the joke being beaten to death its more a matter of the implementation strangling performance.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen some speed tests and it is very respectable, though not by any means the fastest of the bunch.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[Anonymous Coward]

I seem to remember there being intellectual property problems with NTFS. IE patents in regards to writes with NTFS, which is why its not part of the kernel source code.

Re:Real writeable NTFS?

[cbhacking]

I don't hear people complaining about Apple's support for NTFS.

Last I checked (which was a Tiger machine, my friends have been quite slow to upgrade to Leopard), Apple didn't have write support on NTFS at all. This elicited a considerable number of complaints.

Linux, by comparison, can read and write ntfs (with journaling), can even boot off it, and I believe it can use at least some of the ACLs and other metadata as well.

No volume shadow copy support yet, though... so for the time being, I mount my NTFS volumes RO unless absolutely needed.

Good Featurelist

[Doc Ruby]

I wish every kernel release announcement included a highlevel featurelist like that. Not just a ChangeLog, as each bug is fixed or small feature is added. But rather a fairly highlevel list of new and improved (and fixed) features like the one in this Slashdot story. Best if in the announcement itself, but at the very least always in the release package.

That way most of us can decide whether to upgrade, or to wait (perhaps for the x.1 version, which is typically a higher quality bugfixed delivery). Since kernel upgrades require rebooting (and again to downgrade after test), knowing whether to ignore a release based on its highlevel upgraded features itemization is a very effective announcement feature, which makes all of us using the releases more productive.

Re:Good Featurelist

[JohnFluxx]

Um, did you try clicking on the link?

http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_26

That's a pretty highlevel featurelist

Re:Good Featurelist

[Doc Ruby]

Er, that's why I was congratulating this featurelist. I'd like to see that kind of list in every release, and that link proves that it's possible. Great progress.

But a link in a Slashdot story to a KernelNewbies.org wiki page isn't the same as the actual kernel release announcement pointing to such a featurelist in the actual kernel package. Which would be the even better progress that I asked for. Which I think practically everyone would like to see happen.

Re:Good Featurelist

[JohnFluxx]

Uh sorry, I misread your original post :)

Re:Good Featurelist

[Doc Ruby]

Probably my fault for not being more clear.

FWIW, there's no such FeatureList page, even at KN.o (that I can find), for kernel releases much prior to 2.2.26 . So we really do have to congratulate people for delivering this valuable service, so it becomes the default, rather than a mere fad that disappears.

Re:Good Featurelist

[Anonymous Coward]

>I wish every kernel release announcement included a highlevel featurelist like that

http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_25

Once time has come, there will also be a "2_6_26" page, respectively.

Re:Good Featurelist

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you meant 2.6.26 and not 2.2.26, you can get the old changes at http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux26Changes. This has been done for a few years now. lwn.net provides good info on what has changed as well, if you want more in depth info on some specific change.

Re:Good Featurelist

[Anonymous Coward]

You're looking for this: http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges

Re:Good Featurelist

[adrianbaugh]

KernelNewbies is your friend.

is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core

[Anonymous Coward]

fixed? it eatz up my battery like you know who ...

Re:is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core

[something_wicked_thi]

Did you file a bug report? Did they mark it fixed? If you answered no to either of these questions, you may be a whiner. You also may not know what you're talking about as you said "20+k interrupts" without actually specifying an amount of time or what type of interrupts they were, and you came and posted here rather than checking the change logs for things like, "dual core", "interrupt storm" or any other keywords.

Re:is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core

[Anonymous Coward]

nope :(

Wakeups-from-idle per second : 26035.8 interval: 5.0s

Linux localhost 2.6.26-080714 #1 SMP Mon Jul 14 23:53:58 JST 2008 i686 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7250 @ 2.00GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

Re:is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core

[hostyle]

fixed? it eatz up my battery like you know who ...

who? ceiling cat?

Re:is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core

[Anonymous Coward]

Wakeups-from-idle per second : 457.6 interval: 10.0s

Linux localhost 2.6.24-19-generic #1 SMP Wed Jun 18 14:15:37 UTC 2008 x86_64 GNU/Linux

2GHz Core 2 Duo T7300

Did they introduce the wakeups from idle with the 2.6.25 kernel or something? Or perhaps you have another driver or something misconfigured?

Re:is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core

[siddesu]

the wakeups been there from long time ago. at least since 2.6.23 or something, the bug's here:

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9489

Re:is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core

[Anonymous Coward]

Defensive fanboi bitch.

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9489
Hand over your mod points.

Re:is the bug with 20+k interrupts on dual core

[something_wicked_thi]

Right. You post here asking if a bug is fixed when you have a bug number that is still marked New. Clearly, you knew the answer to your question, which, as I said, makes you a whiner. As for "Defensive fanboi bitch", I accept the "bitch" part, but who said anything about defending or supporting Linux? I mentioned that you're a lazy git because you didn't bother to answer your own question when it was trivially easy to do so. As it turns out, you did know the answer and felt like whining. So who's bitching now?

Translation please?

[Vellmont]

Some of these I know what they are, and some I can guess at. But what is:

read-only bind mounts
x86 PAT (Page Attribute Tables)
basic paravirtualization support
BDI statistics and parameters
per-process securebits
device white-list for containers users

And what might I see as a result of these improvements somewhere along the line?

Re:Translation please?

[Anonymous Coward]

and how bout some RTFM?

i'll start with the frist one:
man mount /bind

Re:Translation please?

[Mopatop]

Fucking Google it.

Re:Translation please?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, I don't think you understand how Gnu/Linux works just yet... I'll point you to the right link: www.google.com

Re:Translation please?

[JohnFluxx]

Click the link in the story: http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_2_6_26

and it explains it all there

Re:Translation please?

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon mods, Informative?
What's the information on this comment?

Should be Interesting, or just Underrated.

Shuttleworth Sees Possibility For

[Anonymous Coward]

Shuttleworth Sees Possibility For a QT-based Linux kernel

Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[damn_registrars]

Is it really accurate to title this as "Linux 2.6.26 Out"? The article is talking about Linux kernel 2.6.26, isn't it? Is there actually a version of Linux somewhere that strictly follows this version numbering system? It's great to see these new features added on to the Linux kernel, but really, if someone saw this and then tried to find "Linux 2.6.26" for their own system, does it exist somewhere as a downloadable OS?

I am asking this question as a FreeBSD guy, who doesn't pay a whole lot of attention to the numbering of the Linux world.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

it exist somewhere as a downloadable OS?

Fsck, no. It's a kernel.

-- feeding the trolls

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Timothy Brownawell]

Technically, "Linux" is the kernel, and there is no "Linux" OS. Of course, the various distros are generally referred to as "Linux" distros, which really doesn't help matters any. I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[plus_M]

Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

Yes. When people refer to entire distributions as "linux" they are being technically incorrect, as the GNU folks are kind to point out at the drop of a hat. The entire operating system is GNU/Linux - Linux is just the kernel.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Linux is just the kernel, and calling Linux distributions "version[s] of Linux" is wrong.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[LiquidFire_HK]

Linux is the name of the kernel itself. It would be redundant to specify it additionally. Complete systems including the kernel and applications are commonly called distributions.

OTOH, a lot of people (somewhat wrongly) refer to the entire distros as "Linux", and this is where your confusion comes from.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[damn_registrars]

there is no "Linux" OS

That was what I thought. I just wanted to make sure nobody squeezed in an official "Linux OS" when I wasn't paying attention.

However, I'm not sure that it is helpful from a consumer (ie, "desktop linux") standpoint to say that "Linux 2.6.26 is out" if it refers to the kernel and not the OS (regardless of the fact that "Linux" actually refers to the Kernel and not any particular OS). I would think that when this happens, there are likely fair numbers of Linux newbies that will start running around looking for where to get this new version to upgrade their existing install - or to install on Grandma's windows 98 box.

I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.

I'm not sure where exactly you're going with that. Though I will concede that FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD all use their own fascinating and unique numbering systems (as well as their own kernels). And of course the three have varying relationships to the "original" BSD.

Which of course some like to compare to the original LSD, but that's a whole different discussion.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Timothy Brownawell]

The entire operating system is GNU/Linux - [...]

Because libc+shellutils+gcc is so much more relevant than X, KDE/e17/etc, the package manager, ...

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Darkness404]

The entire operating system is GNU/Linux -

No, I think the entire operating system is GNU/Linux/X/Mozilla/QT/GTK/*insert favorite WM*/whatever else. If you refer to the entire OS as GNU/Linux, you are neglecting other key parts of the OS. If you call Windows NT, just NT there is no problems with it, the various divisions of MS don't call it Windows/DOS/NT do they? Linux is the name of the kernel, NT is the name of another kernel, yet I see both being referred to as Linux or NT, the difference is MS isn't always correcting you.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[damn_registrars]

The entire operating system is GNU/Linux - Linux is just the kernel.

So then with GNU/Linux, you can boot your computer, login, and do shell functions, yes?

Conversely, if you had only the Linux kernel (or "just Linux") what could you accomplish? Anything beyond just booting the computer? Can the Linux kernel boot without GNU?

I don't know where the defined point is where one ends and the other begins.

Although couldn't you build a fair number of the GNU functions into the Linux kernel if you felt so inclined? Could a custom Linux kernel (say based on 2.6.26 for the sake of argument) be built into an operating system of its own?

And no, this isn't a BSD/Linux pissing contest. I couldn't even answer the last question for FreeBSD myself.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Nutria]

I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.

I'm not sure where exactly you're going with that

What he(?) means is that just as {Free,Net,Open}BSD are complete operating systems, so are Linux distros like Debian, Fedora, etc.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[kitgerrits]

OK, I'll bite.

Linux 2.6.26 literally refers to the Linux Kernel.
What other packages you put in your distribution is your own business ;-)

(Keep in mind, there is actually no 'Linux O/S' There are merely O/S Distributions based on the Linux Kernel and some (GNU) packages)

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[X0563511]

When the kernel is done it loads /sbin/init. This is changable - it doesn't HAVE to run that. This could be some kind of shell, but usually init goes and starts services, configures hardware, starts networking, etc.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The OS is useful without X / desktop managers but irrelevant without a compiler/toolchain.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[damn_registrars]

What he(?) means is that just as {Free,Net,Open}BSD are complete operating systems, so are Linux distros like Debian, Fedora, etc.

I could clarify that I wasn't sure if the poster chose those particular distros for a reason, or just as examples of Linux distros.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[BPPG]

For linux, most of the stuff printing to the screen at start up would be the kernel (or if you use the old fbsplash, and not the userspace-straddling app 'splashy', then that's the kernel as well). The kernel may prepare some userspace apps for running, and may require bash or some shell script in it's userland config files, but it would be possible to make a kernel that does nothing but boot and print to screen.

Theoretically, you could hardcode some apps into the kernel itself, or make userland-like modules. Which is actually kind of an interesting idea. But between distros, nobody really does it.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[BrentH]

The entire operating system is called Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, Suse, whatever. They all happen to have a Linux kernel, GNU tools and are very compatible, but that's all there is to it. All these operating systems are often refered to as Linux, as that's what makes them all so very compatible (If an app runs in Ubuntu, it very probably also runs in Suse). There's no such thing as GNU/Linux, because I've never ever seen an .iso labeled like that. gNewSense is afaik the endorsed operating system by the GNU project, let's leave it at that.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Timothy Brownawell]

I'm not sure that it is helpful from a consumer (ie, "desktop linux") standpoint to say that "Linux 2.6.26 is out" if it refers to the kernel and not the OS

It's not, but it can be helpful for people who like to follow the bleeding edge.

I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.

I'm not sure where exactly you're going with that.

Trying to provide a rough comparison, since I don't know the extent of your (lack of) familiarity with the "Linux world". But it sounds like it's at least as good as my familiarity with the BSD world.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[bigstrat2003]

And this is why common usage trumps technicality. At this point, the GNU folks need to accept that they've lost. The OS is called "Linux" now, and no amount of them correcting people is going to change it... it just makes them look like pedantic whiners.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[SanityInAnarchy]

In that case, since the OS is useful without a kernel, it's fair to just call it Linux.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[IMightB]

I think that (despite all the things said about him), CmdrTaco has been around long enough to know the difference, and most likely assumed that everyone would as well. We're not all n00bies you know.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[skeeto]

There's no such thing as GNU/Linux, because I've never ever seen an .iso labeled like that.

How about a purchasable CD labeled GNU/Linux?

http://www.agnus.com.ar/site/agnus/debian/

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[shutdown -p now]

There's no such thing as GNU/Linux, because I've never ever seen an .iso labeled like that.

Sure you did. It's called "Debian GNU/Linux", right there on Debian main page.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[doti]

Yes, it is so much more relevant.

1) Linux servers don't need X/KDE/e17/etc

2) X/KDE/e17/etc can't exist without libc+shellutils+gcc

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Timothy Brownawell]

What, X can only be compiled with GCC and not some other C compiler, and can only work with the GNU version of libc and the GNU version of the shellutils?

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Dragonslicer]

The OS is useful without X / desktop managers but irrelevant without a compiler/toolchain.

People using it as a desktop system might disagree with that statement.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Skjellifetti]

I don't know where the defined point is where one ends and the other begins.

If it isn't in Emacs, it is part of the kernel.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Vexorian]

I call mine Ubuntu/Debian/GNOME/GNU/Linux .

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Vexorian]

No, it is as fair to call it Linux as it is to call it GNU. Both are quite required...

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Knuckles]

All these operating systems are often refered to as Linux, as that's what makes them all so very compatible (If an app runs in Ubuntu, it very probably also runs in Suse).

That's certainly not mainly the accomplishment of the kernel, but of libc and a million other userspace libraries and applications.

There's no such thing as GNU/Linux, because I've never ever seen an .iso labeled like that.

Debian GNU/Linux?

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think the entire operating system is GNU/Linux/X/Mozilla/QT/GTK/*insert favorite WM*/whatever else. If you refer to the entire OS as GNU/Linux, you are neglecting other key parts of the OS.

I can run a Linux-kernel-based OS without using (X.org|XFree86|OtherXServer), or Mozilla, or QT, or GTK. Busybox could be used to replace most of the Gnu stuff, but I'm pretty much gonna need the Gnu C library no matter what.
  Your argument is a big pile of slippery-slope. "Linux" is too vague, because that's just a kernel. Gnu/Linux is specific enough to indicate that we're talking about the kernel+userspace stuff, there's no need to tack on any more specificity than that.
  In the future, please try to make your posts contain at least 30% less fail, suck, and slippery-slope. Thank you.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can the Linux kernel boot without GNU?

Of course it can, it just needs something to take the place of the GNU tools, such as Busybox (which isn't GNU software) for example.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[SanityInAnarchy]

Unless you count the initial compiler, I'd dispute that. Granted, I don't know of any Linux distros without a GNU userspace, but I believe it's possible. Busybox would be a good starting point.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[zsau]

Wrong again. The article your replying to — you know, the one that says "Linux 2.6.26" shows you're wrong. Now more than ever I think the kernel is called "Linux" just like that, and now more than ever I think people are recognising that Debian GNU/Linux is a different operating system from SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop. Many people call the family "GNU/Linux"; I myself vacillate depending on the phase of the moon but usually I say neither and circumlocute because neither "GNU/Linux" nor "Linux" are really mainstream concepts. But considering many people less affiliated with the Free Software Foundation than me call it GNU/Linux all the time, and seeing as most people agree that e.g. "Linux 2.6.26" is a perfectly valid designation for the latest kernel version, to say that anyone's "lost" is a bit of a stretch.

Quite why it matters to you what anyone wants to call it I don't understand. The FSF have an egotistical justification for it, and don't deny it, but in what way shape or form does it help you if no-one calls it "GNU/Linux" any more? how does it hurt you if anyone chooses of their own free will to call it "Linux"?

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[bigstrat2003]

but in what way shape or form does it help you if no-one calls it "GNU/Linux" any more?

Simple. "GNU/Linux" is a needlessly complex name. We have the luxury, unlike some professions (I feel for the names for compounds that chemists have to use), of choosing simple, elegant names for what we produce. When someone comes up with a clunky name like that, even though there's a better way, you'd better believe I'm going to be opposed to it. I don't want something retarded like that to become mainstream, making my life more difficult because I will either have to a) fight off the "corrections" people give me when I use a simpler name, or b) give in and use a clunky name for the OS.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[zsau]

But in what way does calling it "Linux" benefit you there? Presumably you're going for a marketing thing; clunky names come up every now and again in business like "AOL Time Warner" or "Price Waterhouse Coopers". You might object that neither of these examples are aimed at end users, but I don't think "GNU/Linux" (or "Linux") should be either.

Calling it "GNU/Linux" or "Linux" are both bad ideas because they will give the marketee the misconception that Linux is a homogeneous whole, somewhat like Windows. It's not. Lots of software is only distributed in source form (which is useless to the people who are likely to be the subject of your marketing, if "GNU/" makes a difference) with a compiled version for only a limited number of specific distributions, and the packages in the various repositories are very much distribution-specific so you can't just say "apt-get install yeahconsole". You can't install a binary for Fedora 3 on Ubuntu 8.04. Tutorials for how to set up specific things like wireless networking won't be applicable across distributions — even binary compatible ones like Ubuntu 8.04 and Kubuntu 8.04.

Using the name of the specific distribution you have in mind is almost always a better option. In this context it doesn't matter whether you think Slackware is a GNU/Linux distribution or a Linux distribution.

(Also, I personally have never been corrected for calling the beast GNU/Linux or unadorned Linux when it has served my purpose. In general the only times I've witnessed it, other than when talking to Stallman or other people in the inner circle of the FSF, have been people who tell others it should be called one or the other.)

[Alternatively, you could be cheeky and come up with a new, simple name. I nominate "Slash" from the slash in "GNU/Linux". I doubt it'll catch on — massive uphill battle and all that — but seeing as you can imagine whatever you like on either side of the slash, from "usr/sbin" to "GNU/X.org/KDE/vim/.../Linux", it probably makes everyone happy, unless they deliberately want to belittle someone's contribution in particular. In which case they're being mean and I don't care a whit about their opinion. Another suggestion is "Plus" from Stallman's revised GNU+Linux suggestion, and also from the fact that Linux is better than other operating systems in some circumstances whenever people are advocating it. At least I hope it is; I'd hate for people to knowingly advocate its use in a situation where it's bad. But I'm just rambling now.]

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[dbIII]

I'm really not sure why I bother anymore but I should point out that Microsoft failed to convince the judge that a web browser is part of an operating system. By the textbook definition neither is the shell, the compiler or even the C library. Sorry guys, gnu did not write linux so there is no gnu/linux operating system - they do one called hurd instead. However there are gnu/linux distributions out there.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Fri13]

Technically, Linux is a kernel AND the OS, but it is refered incorrectly only as a kernel, on market purpose or by RMS styled.

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

Can someone tell why it is then needed to include ex: I/O, Drivers, Filesystem, Networking, Process management and system calls before something is OS?

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Fri13]

Those ain't complete operating systems, only a full featured systems. Operating System != System.

Can you please give me technical requirements that software is needed to support ODF, PDF, IM, Email, HTTP etc, until it can be called as OS?

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Fri13]

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Fri13]

OS needs a kernel so it can control the hardware and give OS services for applications. Applications needs a OS. OS+Applications generates a system. People buys complete systems where they have lots of applications (or less) and OS is running all the applications and controlling the hardware... so, what is part of OS and what is not?

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Fri13]

But what if all the services what OS is need to give for application, has included in kernel, isn't the kernel then a OS?

Micro kernel vs Monolith kernel (and then very wierd joined "Hybrid kernel").

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

Should I say that because the OS is not usefull without a applications, it is just fair to just call all those distributions as Linux/Firefox/GNU/Apache/Samba etc?

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I have heard that Windows NT's kernel has no name at all, it is just called as "micro kernel" or a "macro kernel", even by Microsoft, and generally it is just Windows NT's kernel. Windows NT is the OS. Windows NT includes micro kernel, almost all OS services in the kernel space and few on those in the userland.

At least this is the case on Windows 2000 style http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Windows_2000_architecture.svg

Linux itself includes everything what OS definition requires... before something can be called as OS, in itself. (Monolith vs Micro) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Linux_kernel_diagram.svg

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Fri13]

Then this one is good for you, because you are saturated with marketing propaganda!

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

Your next tasks are,
1) find out what are needed before *something* can be called as OS. (check serious OS coding books)
2) find information about monolith kernel and micro kernel and marketing propaganda "hybrid kernel".
3) Look the kernel definitions and what is told about kernel and user space.
4) Then check this kernel information against OS definition and do a conclusion.

You find out, Linux is the OS alone.
Then check out dictionary what it says about kernel, operating system, system and marketing. Then check out what distribution means.
Check what "Free Software (GPL)" and "Open Source" definitions means. Check these informations against all the information what you have collected, you find out, there is Linux OS what is distributed by multiple participant.

Then you get conclusion, Linux is the OS and always, someone takes the OS (Linux) and bundles with it a applications and roll from it a own product, what is called as OS, because they offer the OS as the main product on their product package.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Fri13]

How about http://www.getgnulinux.org/

But seriously, check the OS definition and you see that Linux is alone the OS!
http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Fri13]

GNOME is part of GNU....

But http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html
Check the OS definition!

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[BrentH]

I don't know about you, but a kernal alone does not alow me to operate my system. Also, I've never seen an iso with only a kernel. All this bickering is nice and dandy, point still stands that most of us are in the normal world, don't care about what is in serious coding books or what GNU fanatics think about naming conventions. I'm in the shop (or the internet, or in a meeting with advisors) and I need something to install on my computer(s) so I can do what I bought them for. So that's for example Windows, RedHat, Ubuntu, what have you, not anything else.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Fri13]

Operating System != System what you operate.

Operating System is software what allows you to operate your system and hardware ;-)

OS is "Host" or "control program" for applications and hardware. It allow you to run your computer and run your applications. And there is differences on micro and monolith kernels. Micro kernel does not run everything what OS is should done, so Micro kernel is not a OS. But monolith kernel can run all OS services for applications and hardware, so it can be the OS.

Check out differences of Monolith and Micro kernels and then look what Windows NT has and then what Linux has.

So do not mistake Operating System to System (complete package what you get when you install Fedora, Vista or Gentoo). OS allows you to operate your system ;)

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[BrentH]

And that's exactly the kind of newspeak (Free software != software that's free) that us normal people don't like and don't care about. The phrase Operating System is more often than not used to refer to the entire package, because, for us normals, any kernel or operating system as you mean it is useless. You don't hear Microsoft advertising ntoskrnl.exe, but Windows, for precisely that reason.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Fri13]

And thats why the normal person who dont know technology, is not qualified to speak about technology, if only informatio he has, is marketing speak!

Example, normal user believes that Kubuntu and Ubuntu are two different OS's, why? because their name is different and their Desktop looks different. Now, person who knows anything about KDE and GNOME, tells that those are same OS but with different desktop.

So, now when you use Ubuntu, wich one is more important by you, when you want to change desktop from GNOME to KDE. That your friend tells "you need to change OS" or "You can change desktop"? You say that first one is more important because you are so lousy to understand what you do! And what you do when you have other distribution (I should say different "OS" for you?) where you install different way the KDE or Gnome, what you say then? You cant start then speaking anymore again about desktop enviroments etc, you are just confusing users.
Same thing goes for daily purpose, do you say that "You cant open that PDF because your OS does not support it, you need to change that OS or install OS part so it can open PDF files..." or "You need to update your OS, your internet browser is broken and your OS is unsecure now".

It is actually the biggest problem on everything, people does not care what they do and how they do it. They dont care how things works and what technical terms or other stuff means. That's why our language is getting ripped of because you dont care how you should say something, you just want to say it. People always leaves business, what they are responsible, for others, so others are needed to fight the mess what those, who dont care, have build up!

In long run, your attitude just blows away whole humanity... no one cares why something is now something... no one cares history, or the technology. No one normal does not want to understand things, they just want it. Just like on fast foor, you dont want to make food, you just want it taste OK and you get it when you want, not 5min later after prepairing the food.

For normal user the Ubuntu, Fedora and Gentoo are different products what are marketed as OS's. For normal user those are three different OS's, just like on Windows is against Macosx.

Even the Microsoft is wise enough that they dont shoot them self to leg by yelling that Vista home premium is different OS than Ultimate, they speak about editions etc.

And you guys, you are fighint all against others because you are defending the marketing term "OS" because "normal user does not care".

Microsoft advertise the Windows, and all others should advertise the Linux and the distribution name. They shouldn't advertise different distributions as different OS's, because then you play Microsoft pocket!

Microsoft can make studies that Linux is not so secure than Windows, because they can say that all bugs on firefox is the bugs in OS. They can say that all bugs of Apache, is bugs in OS, just because you, lousy and "dont care" people play MS pocket by lying what is OS! You cant proof Microsoft to be wrong by telling that Firefox or Apache bugs are not the OS bugs, because in first place, you has told those are the OS!
So nice job by you guys, who dont care!

I dont mean that you first start to teach for normal user that how CPU is utilizied and memory is reserved when user clicks the icon on desktop and where the OS is. But I dont mean either, that you should LIE to normal user.
When the normal user plans to start study technology, he turns for techinical books and then it is much harder to learn anything, if the basic things have gone wrong in first place!

It is easy to brake things and go the short road, but it is better way, to take little longer route and preserve the future!

I dont care what you lousy guys, you who "dont care" do, but you just brake the whole world by saying "I dont care"....

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[cbhacking]

Not quite true. The various BSDs actually use substantially different kernels and other low-level components in many cases. They evolved (or rather, branched) out of a common base, but it was many years ago and most of that legacy code was re-written anyhow. Drivers are not inter-compatible, for example (though I hear they aren't too terribly hard to port).

More accurate would be to say that, for example, DesktopBSD is a distro of FreeBSD (or a FreeBSD-derived distro), since (as with Linux) the kernel and many of the base tools are the same or very close, but DesktopBSD includes its own installer, configuration tools, customized KDE desktop, standard packages, etc.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[cbhacking]

You forgot the other (optional and/or deprecated) NT subsystems. I could be writing this from DOS/Win16/Win32/WOW64/POSIX/"OS/2"/Windows NT. (Actually, I do have the POSIX subsystem enabled, and I'm leaving out Subsystems like the graphical SS and the local security SS and all that...)

Of course, those were all produced in-house, and Microsoft does refer to the OS as Microsoft Windows [NT/2000/XP/Vista]

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[T3Tech]

You forgot FreeCiv, you insensitive clod.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[BrentH]

There is something in between marketing departments and IT specialists, and thats common sense. And calling Ubuntu an OS is common sense, becuase that what 99% of its users will think it is.

Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ?

[Fri13]

Yes, it is not "wrong" to call Ubuntu as OS, as long it is not be called as different OS than Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Mint or Mandriva. Because all those share same OS.

There is no need to talk about OS, we can talk the whole system with it's name, Ubuntu or Mandriva.

It is even better by that way when you say "Damn, my whole system is f*ked" or "Damn, Ubuntu just tilted". No need to spread false information against technology science that by talkin by "Damn, my OS does not show all web pages right" or "OS what I use, is much better than yours because it has open office preinstalled and media codecs too!"

It is very dificult to speak truethfully for normal user, if you dont know what words/terms to use. If you know, you just help the other person by telling the basic terms what you say and he can find out easier everything later, if intrested to know. And same time user does not think the first informer is wrong because book says other wise or if very bad things happens, user believes that book is wrong and the informer is right...

Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[tucuxi]

Reading on it, it seems that Linus never has been a great fan of kernel debuggers. From a famous post,

I happen to believe that not having a kernel debugger forces people to think about their problem on a different level than with a debugger. I think that without a debugger, you don't get into that mindset where you know how it behaves, and then you fix it from there. Without a debugger, you tend to think about problems another way. You want to understand things on a different _level_. [...]

I agree that stepping with a debugger instead of thinking real hard about the code (and using abundant log statements) is generally a waste of time, and that expecting to catch rare occurrences of weird race conditions with a debugger is not worth the effort. Sloppy programmers don't take the time to think, and rely too much on fixing what they could have not broken. Unit tests, although more expensive to code, can be reused many times - debugging sessions are one-shot.

On the other hand, even good programmers can get stuck and benefit from a debugger every once and then. I guess this argument finally won the day.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[dahitokiri]

Heh, another interesting dichotomy between Microsoft and Linux. I debug Vista using a kernel debugger for Microsoft; they seem to rely on it rather heavily.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

linus is petrified that some good kernel debugger practicioner will figure out how to restore the file shred function to the kernel, and to restore the interface to the shredder thru an easy grafical interface like konqueror. Then he will lose his bribe from big business.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[fireboy1919]

Big thing that a debugger generally gives you isn't the trace through the code.

Its look at the state of the system when you know there's a problem.

Now you can probably get there by using logs...assuming that someone has written all of the state information you need into the logs for that particular instance.

If they haven't, though, frequently that'll save a lot of time - ESPECIALLY when you're debugging other people's code.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[Fallen Andy]

These days I'm too lazy to bang around fiddling with OS's, but back in the early 80's when I ported the UCSD p-system to many machines, we didn't usually have *any* kind of debugger except our own log statements. So, one day I got given an Orion Instruments logic analyser (which could do hardware debugging for MC68000). Beautiful. Best productivity disabler I've ever seen. On the other hand, because of a really bad experience on my first p-system port, my own diagnostic code for a later port made me screw up my deadlines badly.

With high level code, a decent debugger is really really useful. With low level code, not so much.

(It's amazing though how many high level programmers don't understand the way debugging changes program behaviour (variable initialization etc - don't even mention heisenbugs)).

The best ever debugger is the "cardboard man". If you really get stuck you explain the code to anyone (including the cleaner). That way, (even though the cleaner doesn't understand anything) you exercise another part of your mind and *see* the problem (... well here we shift left (wtf? right?) oops).

Andy

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[0xABADC0DA]

On the other hand, even good programmers can get stuck and benefit from a debugger every once and then. I guess this argument finally won the day.

Actually after programming in C the past five years I find a debugger completely worthless. Pretty much all problems boil down to:

1) memory / pointer errors
2) usage errors (bad casts, unset variables)
3) code too complicated to follow by reading

The first is covered by valgrind, or if your system doesn't have valgrind then first writing for x86 then porting. The second is covered well by gcc warnings. The third is covered better by logging than a debugger, or better yet just not writing complicated software in the first place.

Before that, in Java the first problem just did not exist, the second was covered by compiler warnings (and no such thing as unset variables), and the third was the same, logging.

So except the kernel, where there's no valgrind, what do you actually use a debugger for?

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[Black Art]

The reason I want a kernel debugger is so I can figure out where the kernel was when the whole system locked up. Trying to guess takes a whole lot of time. (Yes, kernel lockups are rare, but I think I am fighting bad hardware that is not handled gracefully by the kernel.)

Frozen kernels are the hardest to debug. (Insert Korn shell reference here.)

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

stepping with a debugger

using abundant log statements

I love how people with anti-debugger attitudes always seem to rely instead on printfs. as if getting the exact same info from printfs is somehow more noble than from a debugger.

they're both tools. it's up to the developer to be intelligent and an intelligent developer will use the tools that help them achieve the job best. in some cases that's a debugger, in other cases it's debug printfs and logfiles

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

I use a debugger when I step through other people's code, especially when it's ridiculously convoluted code.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[AnObfuscator]

With high level code, a decent debugger is really really useful. With low level code, not so much.

(It's amazing though how many high level programmers don't understand the way debugging changes program behaviour (variable initialization etc - don't even mention heisenbugs)).

I second this. While I *love* debuggers, I've seen otherwise capable programmers *cough* befuddled by unexpected behaviors introduced by the debugger -- such as when stepping through code executing in separate threads.

And yes, the explanation was found through the "cardboard man" debugger.

However, this was not the fault of the debugger, but the developer's lack of understanding. This brings up a wider point: developers need to understand their *toolset* -- language, compilation, and runtime enviornment. If you don't understand what is going on when you hit the nice "build and run" button, you code will eventually suffer.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

with as repetitive as linus' statement was i'm really surprised there isn't more bloat in the code.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[heffrey]

Only about 20 years after NT!!

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

Logging is repeatable and more amenable to higher level analysis tools.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess:
- You get a kernel panic or get to a debuging statement. Debugger kicks in
- You examine variables to see what it was doing. With that information ou figure out whic other variables to examine.
- You examine the backtrace to see which subsystem called you.

Yes, you could add debugging statements, recompile, and hope to hit the same place somehow. This takes time and you have to anticipate what it is you'll want to investigate. Only then can you "reason about the code", once you know what code is involved.

Also, once the kernel gets big enough (which it most likely is already) you could use the debugger to step through subsystems you don't know and see how your code interacts. Once you find where things are going wrong you can figure out who maintains that subsystem and ask for help. Linus might not need help with this, but other people do.

Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus

[Bryan Ischo]

That doesn't make debuggers useless. I find it laughable that some people think debuggers are a bad thing. How can a tool that lets you inspect the workings of a program be a bad thing?

Kernel Debugger

[wvdmc]

While the debugger is, in fact, remote, it appears that perhaps the Linux Kernal really is JUST NOW getting an actual debugger. From TFA:

For many years Linux has not included a kernel debugger. Linus Torvalds vetoed them for years, for reasons that he explained quite well in a know email: "When things crash and you fsck and you didn't even get a clue about what went wrong, you get frustrated. Tough. There are two kinds of reactions to that: you start being careful, or you start whining about a kernel debugger [...] I happen to believe that not having a kernel debugger forces people to think about their problem on a different level than with a debugger. I think that without a debugger, you don't get into that mindset where you know how it behaves, and then you fix it from there. Without a debugger, you tend to think about problems another way. You want to understand things on a different _level_." Despite of those objections, many people wanted a debugger and KGDB is finally going in. It's a remote debugger, it needs two machines. x86 and sparc machines are supported

fakeRAID5 in please

[Zarhan]

When are the patches at http://people.redhat.com/heinzm/sw/dm/dm-raid45/ going to be included? I'm running a dualboot box so have to run the BIOS-fakeraid that works with Windows. I had to run through a few hoops to get it working with 2.6.24 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/220493 comments) and for now it works...but what if I want to update kernel at some point?

Oblig.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but does it run linux....oh wait...

Re:Oblig.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia, Linux outs you!

Good point, but...

[GameboyRMH]

...if your friend/colleague/whatever wants to use an NTFS-formatted drive on your computer, he might be a little unhappy if you reformat it.

I put NTFS support on my Linux computers and Ext2/Ext3 support (and a proper formatting tool) on my Windows computers. It's called interoperability.

Re:Good point, but...

[H0p313ss]

...if your friend/colleague/whatever wants to use an NTFS-formatted drive on your computer, he might be a little unhappy if you reformat it.

I put NTFS support on my Linux computers and Ext2/Ext3 support (and a proper formatting tool) on my Windows computers. It's called interoperability.

Nice one

Can't figure out if I should moderate as insightful, funny or +1 quality bitchsmack

Re:Good point, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you decided to comment instead?

Re:Good point, but...

[cbhacking]

Yeah, I've been using that driver (ext2) for years. It's good at what it does. However... it does NOT actually support ext3, strictly speaking, since ext3 is journaled. You can access - read and write - ext3 volumes with an ext2 driver, but the writes aren't journaled at all (I managed to screw up the Linux partition quite badly once when a power loss hit during a write).

It also caused Linux to run fsck ever single bloody time it booted up, even if I hadn't even READ any files, let alone written them.

HP hs2300!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Add HP hs2300 Broadband Wireless Module to sierra.c

Yay! Support for the built-in GSM modem in my HP2710p!

W00T fP

[Anonymous Coward]

ass u8til I hit my numbers. The loss An operating system if you move a table and shower. For ago, manyC of you and was taken over the system clean To have regular OUTER SPACE THE

Don't forget...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock smoking teabaggers!

Windfarm Support for Late-Model iMac G5?

[reallocate]

I see that windfarm support for the PowerMac 12,1 series has been added.

Does this mean I can finally run Linux on this late-model iMac G5 without the fans exploding?

Anyone running it now?

Does it come with MPX?

[brentonboy]

I'm kind of a noob, but I've been trying for months to figure out how to get MPX installed, and they keep telling me it's coming in the next version of xorg... I want my multiple cursors!

Re:Does it come with MPX?

[Timothy Brownawell]

No, that's completely separate. When it's available will depend on what distro you're using.

Re:Does it come with MPX?

[doti]

You're looking for the next version of X.org, not Linux.

Re: does it come with MPX ?

[rs232]

This video from Sep 2006 appears to have multiple cursors ..

Re: does it come with MPX ?

[brentonboy]

yeah. that's what i want. is that part of linux yet?

moderation stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly which part of that statement was a troll? That comment was moderated from a starting score of 2 down to (-1, troll).

Overrated might not be uncalled for, but I don't see what part of that comment had any clear trolling intentions.

Re:moderation stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, had he mentioned that he is a Windows user, it would be trolling, but I guess we can let *BSD slide. :p

Re:moderation stupidity

[Anonymous Coward]

I would say it has nothing to due with what OS the OP uses. It looks like a pretty honest question, really.

It looks more like the moderators are the trolls, here.

Re: does it come with MPX ?

[Timothy Brownawell]

It never will be. Linux is just the kernel, which is a very important piece of software that make everything else work. X (and MPX) is part of that "everything else", and when it's available will depend on which distro you use.

Ummm...Karma to Burn.

[Beefslaya]

"preliminary support of the future 802.11s wireless mesh standard"

How about getting b,g,a working for standard (intel, broadcom, atheros) chipsets first.

For fucks sake, these technologies have been out for DECADES. It's about time that I can take a standard laptop, load up Ubuntu, Fedora, or any other popular distro, and hot have to pay out my ass for support to get wifi to work, or do somersaults installing wrappers, shitty second rate drivers or shitty GUI interfaces to get it to work.

I'm gonna get flamed, trolled, and told that I should write the apps myself.

Sorry, not everyone is a developer. I just administer and support the servers.

It's hard to push for LINUX desktops or OpenSource technologies when they release a new kernel every week, that doesn't fix the most common issues.

Re:Ummm...Karma to Burn.

[Shaman]

Yes, you're going to get flamed, and for good reason. Just how easy do you think it is to support chipsets from manufacturers who supply no documentation, who load their firmware from their drivers, and who threaten to sue anyone who tries to do it on their own?

And so, yeah, maybe YOU should BECOME a developer.

Re:Ummm...Karma to Burn.

[Beefslaya]

The same reason I get trolled and flamed, is the same reason that LINUX is never going to be more than a "hobby OS"

Re:Ummm...Karma to Burn.

[howlingmadhowie]

you mean because hardware manufacturers are going out of their way to keep linux off the desktop while letting it remain the number one operating system on systems such as super computers, web servers through routers and flatscreen tvs right down to embedded controllers?

Re:Ummm...Karma to Burn.

[Ant P.]

My sound card (a high-end Vortex 2) does not even function in XP, let alone Vista, but it works beautifully in Linux. Clearly Windows is never going to be more than a "toy OS".

Re:Ummm...Karma to Burn.

[Beefslaya]

Linux does very well in a "controlled" environment, or if you would like to purchase it from Novell, RedHat or other big distro.

It's lightweight, fast, and cheap (free in most cases).

I'm talking about certain 802.11 A, B, G chipsets that have been on the market for years.

I have no problems loading up an Apache webserver, IP-chains firewall or Postfix MTA on hardware with no peripherals other that a hard drive, floppy, CD-ROM, and an Intel NIC. It will run for years (provided the hard drive doesn't fail). Don't even get me started on RAID controllers.

My point is that Apple found out long ago, that if they can control what hardware gets into their systems, they can control how well it performs with their OS.

The closest manufacturer to do this with linux is Asus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASUS_Eee_PC

If you want it to be a Desktop OS so bad...Maybe the Linux crowd should stop trying to dig into Microsoft and the manufacturers that are in bed with them.

Start an actual list of hardware that has STRONG "out-of-the-box" linux support. (not some guy in his parents basement got this to work with a wrapper, and an old windows 3.1 driver, running in wine)

Next time I go to buy a laptop, I would even consider Linux, if it had the same stability as the Mac Book Pro I now have.

I used to go for the challenge of getting Linux to run on different machines and devices. But the complete lack of support and bickering is counter-productive.

Re:Ummm...Karma to Burn.

[dbIII]

However it is the hobby OS you do not have to pay for.

Re:Ummm...Karma to Burn.

[RAMMS EIN]

Actually, let's try a more constructive approach.

``How about getting b,g,a working for standard (intel, broadcom, atheros) chipsets first.''

I'm sure it's being worked on. As for that happening _first_, I don't think that's a really good idea. To you, support for these chipsets may be very important, so important that it makes you feel bad if any features have been added, without adding supports for said chipsets, first. To others, these chipsets may not be so important. Those people would rather have other features added first. With the large number of people who are working on Linux, a lot of things can be worked on at the same time - but we can't hope to please everyone.

As for support for your chipsets - experience shows they will probably be supported someday, but it can take a long time. Exactly how long usually depends how cooperative the manufacturer of the chipset is, and how similar the chipset is to chipsets already supported. Both of these are under control of the manufacturer, so we are largely dependent on them.

``The same reason I get trolled and flamed, is the same reason that LINUX is never going to be more than a "hobby OS"''

I agree with you that flaming you isn't an appropriate response to your original post, which is clearly rooted in frustration. On the other hand, your attitude isn't exactly helpful, either. You complain about developers not supporting your favorite features - features that are probably hard for them to implement, because they are dependent on others who aren't cooperating - and tell them they should have supported your features instead of the many great features they did implement. Then you go on to claim - insultingly - that "LINUX is never going to be more than a \"hobby OS\"", which is clearly disingenious. Linux is being used professionally in many places. People are selling operating systems based on it, and devices with Linux on them. Clearly, it's already more than a hobby OS.

All in all, your complaint about lack of support for common network hardware is well-taken, and probably being worked on. It will take time, of course. Would you really have all other development on Linux halt while the drivers for your chipsets are developed? I don't think that would be wise. I understand (and share) your frustration, but I think the best course of action is:

1. Leave the developers to work on what they want to work on (possibly guided by suggestions from users)
2. For WLAN, choose chipsets that _are_ supported, and preferably with specifications available from the manufacturer. Support the manufacturers that support freedom of choice, not those that would lock you into proprietary software.
3. Express your frustration with the situation, but refrain from insulting people and using strong language. There's just no call for that.

Re:Ummm...Karma to Burn.

[Beefslaya]

OK, first of all, maybe I should reiterate what I meant by "Hobby OS". I should have said that Linux DESKTOP environments and systems will never go beyond Hobby status.

Keep in mind that I run MANY MANY MANY Linux servers, including VM servers running Windows. And I wouldn't run anything else on my CORE service systems.

I refer to the current state of the Desktop environment compared to Windows or any other Desktop OS.

The wireless chipsets that are put into MILLIONS of laptops around the world are pretty common. (Centrino tried to standardize these in the Intel world)
I have owned 3 Centrino laptops. Acer, IBM, and Dell. All have a similar chipset. NONE of them have had support even close to what Windows (Even the new Mac laptops are based on these chipsets...they can do it in UNIX but can't do it in LINUX?) have.

You are correct in my frustration. I have been trying for YEARS to get Linux workstations out in my field. The closest I can come is running Thin Station clients that connect to a Terminal Server. Most management won't go for it. Three reasons, MOBILITY, COMPATIBILITY, and SUPPORT.

As for my bitching and moaning, it's well justified. I agree you need to be cutting edge, however...when you don't take care of the technology that already exsists (ABG) why should we be concerned or even care about something that isn't even on the radar for the next 3 years? (S)

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Linux and all it stands for. And I really would love to roll out some productive workstations, mobile or not.

Re:Ummm...Karma to Burn.

[howlingmadhowie]

The only bickering i see is the comment from someone who says "linux will always be a hobby os because it doesn't support every wlan adapter out of the box" and then blaming the kernel developers for this, without realising that linux already has more than 80% of the supercomputer market, for example, and without mentioning that it would in many cases be illegal and punishable with jail time if someone developed a driver for linux for these wlan adapters.

you can find a lot of good lists out there for hardware that has worked under linux. the lists are problematic because hardware manufacturers have this habit of altering devices (some say in order to stop the device being supported under linux).

Re:Ummm...Karma to Burn.

[RAMMS EIN]

``As for my bitching and moaning, it's well justified.''

Yes, but you are barking up the wrong tree.

It is not that the Linux developers don't want to support more 802.11[abg] chipsets.

It's that the chipset manufacturers don't want to work with the developers who would add support for their chipsets.

This is where it differs from the examples of Windows and OS X you give. For those, either the chipset manufacturers provide the drivers themselves, or they help those who develop the drivers by giving them specs (possibly under a non-disclosure agreement). For whatever reason, they are not willing to do the same for Linux.

What a shame...

[Anonymous Coward]

What a shame that they are releasing yet another version... and likely will again real soon.

They should have just taken the time to code it properly the first time around, but obviously that's too much trouble.

Start collecting

[Anonymous Coward]

Find other people with the same problem, ask them to donate a few bucks and pay a developer to fix it. 1000$ should be enough...

no support for Hauppauge HVR-1600?

[jbr439]

I see support for a number of other Hauppauge cards and USB devices, but nothing on the HVR-1600. Did this not make it in?

possible != practical

[doti]

Just as you can, indeed, make a complete operating system using the Linux kernel and not a single line of GNU code.

That fact is, the Linux systems we have today are GNU/Linux.

Re:possible != practical

[Fri13]

What is in the OS definition list?

- Process management?
- Memory management?
- Hardware management?
- Network management?
- Filesystem management?
- System calls (servers)?
- HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer)?
- ????

Micro kernels does not include all those itself. Linux does, so is the Linux OS or is it just a kernel?

Micro kernel is located alone in kernel space and OS services on the userland.
Monolith kernel is located alone in the kernel space, and no OS services on the userland.
So called 'hybrid kernel' is micro kernel what is located with some, if not all, os services on the kernel space, some might be on userland.

So are you saying that Linux is a microkernel and OS services are on the userland? I tought it was a monolith kernel.

http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html

It shouldn't be hard.

[jd]

At least, to do a pre-configuration tool. You can currently list the processor(s), scan many of the physical and virtual busses, discover nearby network resources, etc. If that information were to be collected and then compared with "best practice" values for configuration options, it should be possible to set up many of the kernel options automagically. Not all, perhaps, but many. If you want something really sophisticated, you could do this as a two-pass thing. First pass uses "best practice" values and enables all of the kernel's profiling options. Second pass tweaks those values for the specific hardware being used using the profiling information, and disables all non-essential debug/profile options.

This would not build a "perfect" kernel, but it should produce something damn close, especially if the user is asked to supply information on anything that is uncertain or which cannot be deduced from the information that's discoverable or collectible.

There are also kernel patches, such as WEB100, which can tune some elements of kernel operation when a system is in use. If you add that into the mix, then you end up with something that is highly customized for the user without the user having to do more than the minimum of customization.

XML tags are lowercase except...

[RudeIota]

Well, if you're going to be picky... except for the DOCTYPE which validates in all-caps.

Re: does it come with MPX ?

[rs232]

"yeah. that's what i want. is that part of linux yet?"

Well yea, at least since July 13 2006 ..

Re: does it come with MPX ?

[brentonboy]

... if it's been here since 2006 then why doesn't anybody know how to install it yet? i've been asking questions on the ubuntu forums (along with a few other people) but nobody knows how to get MPX working, and there are no guides available anywhere on the internet!

Cardboard Man (or Woman)

[foxylad]

++Insightful.

I've lost count of the number of times I've explained some esoteric bug to my wife, and shouted "AHA!" in the middle. The success rate is high, so long as you have a patient partner, and can ignore the glazed look.

Re: does it come with MPX ?

[Fri13]

Yes, Linux is the kernel. But it is not just a kernel, it is the OS too. Check the OS definition and check what Linux includes.
Then search information about monolith kernel and micro kernel and check what Linux does, then check these informations against OS definition, you find out that Linux is the OS, not just a kernel.

Re: does it come with MPX ?

[rs232]

"i've been asking questions on the ubuntu forums"

Why not directly contact the developers?

To try MPX you have to

* Download
* configure the X Server and
* start MPX

Re: does it come with MPX ?

[brentonboy]

I actually have contacted the developer directly. He was not willing to put the time in to explain how to "configure the X Server" since I don't know how to do that.