Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Just wondering... ;)
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?
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.
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.
Why oil price increase equals economic trouble (Score: Interesti
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
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.
--
make install -not war
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?
AccountKiller
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.
1. Create free OS 2. Update it 3. Sell Support for free OS. 4. Profit!
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.
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.
it exist somewhere as a downloadable OS?
Fsck, no. It's a kernel.
-- feeding the trolls
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.
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?
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.
Yes, if you run it in WINE.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
...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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.)
The entire operating system is GNU/Linux - [...]
Because libc+shellutils+gcc is so much more relevant than X, KDE/e17/etc, the package manager, ...
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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.
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.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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
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)
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
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.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
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.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
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!
fixed? it eatz up my battery like you know who ...
who? ceiling cat?
Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
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.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
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.
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.
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?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
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.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
In that case, since the OS is useful without a kernel, it's fair to just call it Linux.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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!
This video from Sep 2006 appears to have multiple cursors ..
davecb5620@gmail.com
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.
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/
Sure you did. It's called "Debian GNU/Linux", right there on Debian main page.
yeah. that's what i want. is that part of linux yet?
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
factor 966971: 966971
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.
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?
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?
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.
Can someone whip out a cluebat please?
<WHACK />
There. Did that help?
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.
factor 966971: 966971
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.
...Steve
XML tags are lowercase.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
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.
FreeSpeech.org
at least he didn't kill anyone! :)
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I call mine Ubuntu/Debian/GNOME/GNU/Linux .
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
No, it is as fair to call it Linux as it is to call it GNU. Both are quite required...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Well, if you're going to be picky... except for the DOCTYPE which validates in all-caps.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
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?
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Wooooooooooooosh
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
The same reason I get trolled and flamed, is the same reason that LINUX is never going to be more than a "hobby OS"
"yeah. that's what i want. is that part of linux yet?"
..
Well yea, at least since July 13 2006
davecb5620@gmail.com
... 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!
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?
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".
Wrong. XML is case-sensitive, not lowercase. XHTML uses lowercase XML elements, but in general XML elements are not lowercase only.
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.
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
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
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"?
Look out!
++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.
Do as you would be done to.
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?
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.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
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.]
Look out!
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.
However it is the hobby OS you do not have to pay for.
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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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).
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?
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?
http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html
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?
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?
``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.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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.
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
GNOME is part of GNU....
But http://www.topology.org/linux/lingl.html
Check the OS definition!
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.
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.
"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
davecb5620@gmail.com
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 ;)
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.
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.
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"....
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.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
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]
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
You forgot FreeCiv, you insensitive clod.
Of course I didn't RTFA... why would I do that? You really are new here aren't you? Don't let my UID fool you.
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.
Well, he mainly just edits them. See?
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...