Linux Kernel 2.6.32 Released

diegocg writes "Linus Torvalds has officially released the version 2.6.32 of the Linux kernel. New features include virtualization memory de-duplication, a rewrite of the writeback code faster and more scalable, many important Btrfs improvements and speedups, ATI R600/R700 3D and KMS support and other graphic improvements, a CFQ low latency mode, tracing improvements including a 'perf timechart' tool that tries to be a better bootchart, soft limits in the memory controller, support for the S+Core architecture, support for Intel Moorestown and its new firmware interface, run-time power management support, and many other improvements and new drivers. See the full changelog for more details."

Comments

Btrfs: kill off ext# please!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to see Btrfs improving so rapidly. I hope popular distros start including support for it, but more importantly, start using it as the default filesystem.

It's time for the ext-based filesystems to die. They are a technology that was obsolete a decade ago.

ReiserFS was set to kill them off, but unfortunately found another victim first... JFS and XFS only work well in certain high-end niches. But Btrfs is much better as an all-around filesystem, which is why it has a chance to finally put an end to ext-based filesystems.

Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!

[gzipped_tar]

Well joking aside, I heard rumors that Reiser4 is being considered by Linux devs and likely to be merged in the stable kernel soon. Any news on that?

Re:Btrfs: kill off ext# please!

[moosesocks]

I think he was referring to the parent. The whole point of the BSD license is to not give a rat's a** about who does what with the code.

One could easily add an extra clause to the standard BSD license that states that any derivative work must be fully compatible with the reference Btrfs implementation in order to bear the Btrfs name. Many projects include such naming clauses.

This sidesteps the "extend and embrace" problem completely.

People work on the "easy" problems

[Fished]

Like the strip, and it raises a valid point. The bottom line is that kernel development advances more quickly than user interface and applications for the same reason that physics advanced more quickly than say ... psychology. That is, because developing a faster kernel is a much easier problem than developing a fun, usable desktop environment. It's easier to write, easier to test, and easier to debug. People tend to gravitate towards problems that they think they can solve--and ignore the problems they don't understand or don't want to deal with.

Personally, I think that the best way forward for Linux on the desktop would be to take GNUstep to the next level. There's a LOT of code there already written, and with a bit more work you might be able to have source-level compatibility with Mac OS X--which would give you access to a bunch of commercial apps. And, most importantly, the ability of the OpenStep API to produce a world class desktop--best in the world in fact--is proven. After 10 years, I don't think that either KDE or GNOME have really done all that much for Linux on the desktop... it's time to try a different approach.

Of course, I'm just kibbitzing, not bringing code. So what right do I have to say anything?

Re:People work on the "easy" problems

[javilon]

Well, GNOME and KDE ( I prefer one of them but it is not relevant to this post ) have done lots for Linux on the desktop. I have been running it for a number of years because I find it more pleasant to use than Windows. And I am not alone.

And the millions of people using it are doing so against active attacks from a number of organizations. Mainly closed software companies, and also (mainly in the past) political organizations and governments.

Re:People work on the "easy" problems

[mcrbids]

Desktop uptake is still very low, but kernel is used by any device that runs Linux, whether it's a router, a smartphone, a server, or a netbook. This has a side effect of kernel hacking being better financed than desktop development, as there are more commercial players interested specifically in the kernel, who couldn't care less about KDE or Gnome.

If I hadn't already replied in this article, I probably would have modded you up. This point is hard for many to understand, but it's quite possible that the total number of Linux kernel installs may already rival the total number of Windows installs, since the types of devices that use Linux are so variable.

Along with its home turf of Internet servers that are otherwise invisible to the end user, it's commonly used on routers, printers, phones, sensors, calculators, digital cameras and camcorders, DVRs and "media centers", so-called "network-accessible" hard drives, digital picture frames, and too many other fixed-function "embedded" devices to name. The combination of stability, driver availability, consistent programming interface, footprint, and cost (free!) is a 1-2-3-4-5 punch to nearly any industry that relies on information processing.

Linux is just about *everywhere* but the desktop nowadays.

Re:Llacking in terminology.

[Luyseyal]

But that wasn't enough, so I had my balls cut off.

Laugh all you want, but I know an AIX kernel hacker who did just that.

-l

Re:ATI chipsets

[L4t3r4lu5]

You're modded funny, but this is why I use Windows. Since I moved into my own house and can put cabling where I want (negating the horrific experiences I've had with wireless networking), 3D graphics issues are the only thing stopping me migrating to linux.

One file system to rule them all

[DrYak]

On the downside, I'm peeved that Btrfs is GPL licensed, which will prevent it from becoming "the one true filesystem" from here on out.

Well, ZFS itself has a GPL-non-compatible license, but that doesn't prevent it from being usable in Linux as an independent user-space process through FUSE.
The same approach could be imagined under non-GPL-compatible OS: have the GPL implementation as a standalone userspace daemon.
(Which is not a bad idea - give more freedom to upgrade)

Windows users will be stuck with NTFS

No matter what. Even if some kernel guru released a tri licensed LGPL/BSD/Proprietary perfect file system, Microsoft will still be using NTFS and promising WinFS soon for whatever the next version of Windows is.
They have a strong case of NIH-Syndrome.

None of them will be compatible, and FAT32 somehow remains the only viable option for removable media.)

For removable media, UDF could be a good candidate too. It's getting widespread availability, specially since Microsoft added support for writing on Vista and Win7.

Re:Llacking in terminology.

[Bert64]

I have a system running a 2.6.32-rc6 kernel with KSM and the latest kvm (which includes support for this, but its turned off by default)... Because i run a number of virtual images that boot the same kernel and system libs (different apps ofcourse), it saved me over 1gb of memory on the host.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

time saving makefile

[inode_buddha]

I'm very interested in the new make target. Specifically, "make localmodconfig". It seems that this new target will check your current .config, and also check whatever modules are currently loaded. It then creates a new config file which only builds the modules you are currently using. This could be a great time and space saving, as opposed to building everything and the kitchen sink as distros tend to do. It gives you a fairly easy and sane way to truly tweak your kernel to fit your box, or script it to fit a whole bunch of non-similar boxes.

Re:time saving makefile

[bcmm]

That's sounds potentially very useful, but beware that if it works the way you're describing it, it could remove, for example, support for USB MSC if your USB stick wasn't plugged in when you did it.