Slashdot Mirror


Linux 2.6.27 Out

diegocgteleline.es writes "Linux 2.6.27 has been released. It adds a new filesystem (UBIFS) for 'pure' flash-based storage, the page-cache is now lockless, much improved Direct I/O scalability and performance, delayed allocation support for ext4, multiqueue networking, data integrity support in the block layer, a function tracer, a mmio tracer, sysprof support, improved webcam support, support for the Intel wifi 5000 series and RTL8187B network cards, a new ath9k driver for the Atheros AR5008 and AR9001 chipsets, more new drivers, and many other improvements and fixes. Full list of changes can be found here."

39 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. Linux 2.6.27 Out by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    Linux 2.6.27 is out, OpenBSD 4.4 is in!

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out by AJWM · · Score: 5, Funny

      I've got some, what do you want moderated?

      Oh, wait...

      --
      -- Alastair
    2. Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out by baeksu · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not to worry, I can help!

      No, wait...crap.

      --
      Gnome: A never ending quest to make unix friendly to people who don't want unix and excruciating for those that do.
    3. Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Okay, he can use my mod points because I'm posting AC. Now if only I had a Slashdot account...

    4. Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out by jd · · Score: 5, Funny

      One of these days, the admins should give Anonymous Coward some mod points.

      --
      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)
    5. Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out by fpophoto · · Score: 5, Funny

      One of these days, the admins should give Anonymous Coward some mod points.

      Mod parent up!

      If nothing else, it would just totally blow the AC's mind when he cruised by here. "WTF? Mod points?"

    6. Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      One of these days, I'm going to chop you into little pieces.

    7. Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out by frankm_slashdot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      sad part is i just pre-ordered the openbsd 4.4 cd set... hah. im not sure if i should be proud or ashamed.

      then again, i sometimes think im the last of the right-os-for-the-job heretics... openbsd on my firewall. solaris (with zfs) on my fileserver... mac os x on my main desktop... (i dabble in photoshop and video.. mostly failed fark contests. ha) and windows vista on my macbook pro (along side of os x of course)... because i do a lot of autocad/solidworks stuff on the side. my webserver runs gentoo..

      i guess you could call me a glutton for punishment.

    8. Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out by hdparm · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, that would be Sun Microsystems.

    9. Re:Linux 2.6.27 Out by adrianwn · · Score: 5, Informative

      For those moderators who didn't get it and modded him Troll: it's the (only) line from the Pink Floyd song "One of these Days".

      By the way, it's "cut", not "chop": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_of_These_Days

  2. Not in upcoming Debian by gringer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a shame this won't be in the upcoming Lenny release of Debian. The in-kernel support for heaps of webcams via gspca is a very nice user-visible element of this release.

    http://release.debian.org/emails/release-update-200808

    Although, I guess they made the decision for 2.6.26 before they realised that a September release would be an impossible target.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
    1. Re:Not in upcoming Debian by Kjella · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's a shame this won't be in the upcoming Lenny release of Debian. The in-kernel support for heaps of webcams via gspca is a very nice user-visible element of this release.

      Debian never paid much attention to desktop features, may I suggest Ubuntu 8.10?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    2. Re:Not in upcoming Debian by WK2 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Although, I guess they [Debian] made the decision for 2.6.26 before they realised that a September release would be an impossible target.

      Yeah. Nobody could have predicted that a Debian release would be late.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
    3. Re:Not in upcoming Debian by Kjella · · Score: 5, Informative

      I believe you have my stapler?

      No, this one isn't red.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:Not in upcoming Debian by CrazedWalrus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Right. Because it's impossible to do on Windows and Mac. You need to wait until the next version of the entire operating system comes out, and then pay for that.

      So yes, please switch so you don't even have the option of doing what a Linux user mentions casually in conversation. Less is better, right?

      (WTF?)

    5. Re:Not in upcoming Debian by BlackCreek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So? Download and build your own kernel..

      Or get Windows or Mac and never have to hear that.

      I bet you buy your LEGO preassembled too.

      I bet he bought his TV and refrigerator preassembled too.

      (don't flame me bro, I also use Linux all the time, but you asked for it ;-))

    6. Re:Not in upcoming Debian by rsmith-mac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, if it was Windows or a Mac, adding support for a webcam would be as easy as installing a binary driver blob. I like Linux, but compiling drivers in to the kernel (and hence needing to compile it yourself, at times) has always been one of it's biggest annoyances.

    7. Re:Not in upcoming Debian by Bent+Mind · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To each their own. However, I always preferred having the driver just be there when I need it. I always found it annoying, under Windows, to have to hunt down drivers. Especially when you have a hundred similar devices that have the same binary driver blob (same chipset) but require a hundred different INF files because every company that assembles a board insists on having a unique driver download. Then you can throw in driver signing that makes life even more difficult.

      Linux drivers are much easier to deal with.

      --
      Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
  3. This is a huge amount of work by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In only 3 months, all of this code has been completed and reviewed by multiple developers. This happens *every* three months. The pace at which the Linux kernel is moving and yet still maintaining quality is incredible. It is clearly the case that the Linux kernel has hit a new kind of critical mass and is now a form of software development that has never been seen before. The sheer number of people involved changes what is possible. If you suggested that every single change to the codebase be reviewed by multiple developers in a traditional proprietary software development house you would be, rightly, laughed at. There simply isn't the resources.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:This is a huge amount of work by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, yes and no. The old LK dev model had unstable releases where bugs were expected. Now every release is stable, and bugs are truly anomalies.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:This is a huge amount of work by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Do you have this hardware? Any chance you could narrow down the versions it works on and the versions it doesn't?

      This is a general problem with kernel development.. if you don't have the hardware, it's a bitch to test. Please do contribute your findings.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:This is a huge amount of work by RMingin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As far as I see, the real change is that what was the 2.4 and what was the 2.5 trees are now kept very close together. Active work (was 2.5) is done on the XX.YY.ZZ-preNUM kernels, it's all polished/troubleshot/reviewed in the XX.YY.ZZ-rcNUM kernels, and then it gets released. What was once 'stable tree' (2.4) work is now done on the XX.YY.ZZ.1 .2 .3 releases, and the developers move to XX.YY.ZZ+1-preNUM.


      It seems to work quite well, and now you no longer have to meddle with dark arts and unsupported known-broken dev kernels to get recent hardware working. Win win all around IMO.

      No more backporting/sideporting/up/down/leftporting to get current hardware code into current kernels, just all the dev community working on one codebase. Makes progress a lot more straightforward and apparently better/cleaner/less buggy.

      --
      The preceding comment is my own, and in no way construes an opinon of the Emperor of Mankind.
    4. Re:This is a huge amount of work by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 5, Funny

      But you can only waste time on Slashdot if you *both* agree to cover for each other. This is an unacceptable solution.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    5. Re:This is a huge amount of work by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you suggested that every single change to the codebase be reviewed by multiple developers in a traditional proprietary software development house you would be, rightly, laughed at.

      When I was at Microsoft, that's exactly how it worked. All code had to be reviewed and approved by the feature owner and the PM. There was also a team that reviewed any changes to the common libraries, in addition to the PM.

      In addition, to actually get code checked in, it had to pass FxCop (code standards verification tool), not break the build, and not break any of the build verification tests (BVTs).

      Mind you, I worked in the test team. Developers have to go through all of the same steps, and then their code also gets tested by the test team.

  4. Change naming scheme by reaktor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    W00t lots of goodies in this one. So... about time to change from the 2.6.infinity_and_beyond scheme to something else. What say you? I think the 2.6.x should have been left behind when the scheduler changed.

    1. Re:Change naming scheme by jd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, they can't release a 2.7, as SCO has already declared that that's the kernel that has the proprietary code in it. (Y'see, the Master, who cunningly disguised his alien identity by calling himself Darl, made an error in the time calculations and ended up traveling back in time too many years. Now's our chance to really screw up the space/time continuum.)

      --
      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)
  5. 'pure' flash devices by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Before you get all excited about running UBIFS on your USB drive, take note: UBI is not for consumer flash media. These devices already incorporate hardware to hide their flash nature so they look like a plain old block device to your OS. UBI is for pure flash devices that directly expose the quirks and distinct characteristics of the underlying media.

    So what kind of flash hardware is this for? Embedded devices, apparently. But maybe as flash storage becomes more common, more devices will support raw access?

    1. Re:'pure' flash devices by moosesocks · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So what kind of flash hardware is this for? Embedded devices, apparently. But maybe as flash storage becomes more common, more devices will support raw access?

      Olympus' xD card format essentially specifies a direct connection between the NAND flash chips and its external interface.

      It's weird and proprietary, yes. However, it's already being done, and there are arguments to be had for minimizing the amount of circuitry on the memory card itself. Interacting directly with Flash isn't as uncommon as you might think it, and can be of huge benefits for portable/embedded devices that require low power consumption.

      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  6. Re:Barely on v.2.6.27? Sheesh, Windows way past th by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Funny

    what number is Vista?

    666

  7. Embedded devices for sure by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yeah, embedded devices definitely. It'll be awfully nice to see simple flash chips soldered onto a board rather than someone bolting an SD or compact flash socket onto them just so you can have a boot device.

    Fragile, more expensive, and adds another physical item that can break. And not only that, but you can drop about 20-30 dollars worth of non-essential hardware from your design and still be on target. If you do any embedded work you know how big 20 dollars worth of hardware savings is. This new driver is *huge*.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  8. Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt by oatworm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If viruses were unique to Windows, we wouldn't have "root"kits. Instead, they'd be "Administrator"kits or perhaps "SYSTEM"kits.

  9. Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt by fpophoto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are clearly one of those arrogant assholes since you think there is such a thing as a pecking order in cyberspace.

    As an arrogant asshole, you need to know you are one of the core reasons why Linux is only slowly gaining acceptance by the masses because you're too good to stoop to a "newbie's" level.

    That being said...nah, you're still an arrogant asshole.

  10. Re:ACPI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > Any chance that this will fix some of the ACPI problems with Linux?

    Just to be clear, ACPI problems are motherboard problems, not Linux problems.

    If the ACPI function of your motherboard is correct and compliant with the ACPI specification, Linux will work just fine.

    Part of the motherboard ACPI problem is that Windows expects, and uses, some functions within ACPI that are not compliant with the ACPI specification ... you know the drill: embrace, extend, obscure, try to screw the opposition ...

    Fortunately with ACPI we have not quite yet got to the "extinguish" phase.

  11. Re:Did Bill Gates pay Shuttleworth to create Ubunt by oatworm · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know this is going to get modded as "off topic", but let's cover this...

    SYSTEM and Local System are basically one and the same, and are almost perfectly synonymous with root. Network Service would be the equivalent of the "nobody" user - i.e. an account that you can use to run low-privilege services. Administrator would be the same as a user with administrative privileges in Linux (perhaps someone in the sudoers list). The trouble, of course, was that, until Vista/2008 came along, it was trivially easy for an Administrator to escalate to SYSTEM - you just had to run a scheduled job in interactive mode (think of a cron job with no password required) and you'd not only have root access, you'd also have access to the current user's console. For an administrator, this came in handy - of course, what was handy and convenient for an administrator was just as handy and convenient for someone else.

  12. Oh yeah. by Almahtar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It'd be the best April Fools day ever.

    1. Re:Oh yeah. by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Meh, why not? It's not like slashdot could get any less useful on April Fools anyway, where other sites run one story slashdot is all wacky all day long.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  13. Re:Thank you Linus. by __aardcx5948 · · Score: 5, Funny

    How much of the code is from Linus himself nowadays? I thought he mostly reviewed/rejected patches, and occasionally, once every to or so years, accepted a patch or two. ;-)

  14. Building your own kernel these days ain't easy by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last time I looked about 9 months ago there were well over 3000 build options for the 2.6 kernel. Thats probably gone up a lot. I used to build my own kernels , anything up to 2.4 was do-able. But 2.6 is so complex with so many options which frankly mean nothing to me , that you would end up with a right dogs dinner thats far worse than anything the distributions could produce and you'll probably find you missed out some important functionality and/or dependency for something to work correctly and have to start again.

    1. Re:Building your own kernel these days ain't easy by Godji · · Score: 5, Informative

      I see your point, but consider the fact that every option (if you use "make menuconfig" at least) has a context-based help message. For the most part, they are actually very useful. Just go through all the options and think whether you need something or not. If you're not sure, there's a recommended safe default right at the end of the help message.

      And you really need to do this once. After that for each new version, you just do "make oldconfig" against the old .config file (the one that stored your choices) and that's typically 10-20 options tops for new major versions.

      Changed hardware? New PC? Just reconfigure the "Drivers" section in a few minutes and you're golden. That's assuming of course you stripped down everything you don't need - if you left it in, you don't evenhave to do as much, it will just work.

      BTW, if you're into tinkering, go all the way and try Gentoo. That project is alive and kicking, regardless of what the media have been saying recently.