Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux Kernel Suffering Power Management Regression?

Posted by Soulskill on from the year-of-linux-on-the-coppertop dept.

An anonymous reader writes "It appears that there's a big power management regression in the Linux kernel for the 2.6.38 and 2.6.39 development releases, including the kernel to ship with Ubuntu 11.04 next week. It's reportedly causing a 10~30% increase in power consumption on many laptop computers."

186 comments

  1. Only Power Users will notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think this is something that only Power Users will notice. It's not something important for the common user.

    1. Re:Only Power Users will notice by ScrewMaster · · Score: 0

      I think this is something that only Power Users will notice. It's not something important for the common user.

      I think a lot of people would notice if their laptop suddenly got a third less battery life.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:Only Power Users will notice by pahles · · Score: 1

      Which insensitive sod has modded parent down?

      --
      Sig?
    3. Re:Only Power Users will notice by drb226 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think this is something that only Power Users will notice. It's not something important for the common user.

      I think a lot of people would notice if their laptop suddenly got a third less battery life.

      Excuse me sir, I believe your pun detector is broken.

    4. Re:Only Power Users will notice by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Actually I would guess it was an overly sensitive sod.

    5. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Which insensitive sod has modded parent down?

      That's insensitive CLOD , you insensitive twit.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    6. Re:Only Power Users will notice by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      Assuming the 18% extra power consumption they found when the machine was idling is representative of what many users will see, than I expect non-power users will notice. If you have a laptop with only two hours of battery life (a netbook from a year or two ago like the AA1 with its standard battery for instance, or many fullsize laptops from a bit earlier) that is a full 21 minutes reduced run time on battery (36 minutes if you count the top, 30%, figure). People using their portable device on a long commute or other journey may well notice a difference, especially if they've not had chance to make sure it is fully charged before leaving.

    7. Re:Only Power Users will notice by johnsnails · · Score: 1

      why is this modded troll and not funny?

    8. Re:Only Power Users will notice by kvvbassboy · · Score: 1

      I guess it's someone suffering a major regression in his sense of humor.

    9. Re:Only Power Users will notice by beelsebob · · Score: 1

      Quite the reverse in fact. Power users care about how much CPU power they can use. Common users care that they can get to $city on the train without their laptop running out of battery.

    10. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's insensitive TWAT, you insensitive dirk.

    11. Re:Only Power Users will notice by asdf7890 · · Score: 3, Informative

      And I've just noticed the pun. Somebody mod me "too slow on the uptake".

    12. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      He might not have the capacity to appreciate such humor.

    13. Re:Only Power Users will notice by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      He might not have the capacity to appreciate such humor.

      No, the GP is right. The battery in my pun detector was dead.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    14. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      your continued resistance to puns is growing alarming

    15. Re:Only Power Users will notice by proverbialcow · · Score: 2

      Must be running the 2.6.38 or 2.6.39 kernel.

      --
      The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
    16. Re:Only Power Users will notice by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Perhaps something was impeding his understanding?

    17. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the current trend, don't you know?

    18. Re:Only Power Users will notice by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Ohm my ${DIETY}...this thread is getting very, VERY painful.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    19. Re:Only Power Users will notice by hairyfeet · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'll probably get flamed for daring to say this, but what the hell: why in the world would you want to run Linux on a laptop? Now on a desktop, sure I can see that. There are many flavors of Linux that use less resources, and most importantly the parts are getting pretty bog standard now on desktops. I mean it is all Realtek or Intel or ATI or Nvidia chips, and that is pretty much it.

      But laptops are where desktops were 20+ years ago, a big mess of proprietary suckage, where you can't even tell by looking at the model number, because you can get three identical model numbered Dell laptops and find three complete different chipsets, sometimes even completely different vendors! Hell it is a bug fucking mess, and the only reason Windows will run on the damned things is the fact the OEMs go out of their way to write drivers for it. With Linux unless you are buying enterprise gear all you are gonna get from them is the finger most times, or if you are lucky a single driver tied to a VERY specific kernel that if you are lucky and the moon is right will work kinda sorta but not quite.

      So I don't see why Linux devs kill themselves to write and try to work on such a fucked up platform, especially if the OEMs are gonna make such a big mess of things with all the proprietary chipsets and funky firmware. Better to tell them to piss up a rope if they won't hand out the specs and code and just stick with ARM, where it looks like the future is gonna be anyway. So why do it? You are wasting very limited resources chasing a design that is here today, replaced by something completely different later today. Just seems like such a waste when the good money will be in embedded and clusters anyway.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    20. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... You must be a power user.

    21. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      power or common really doesn't matter, as a common user of a craptop that has to be plugged to the wall anyway, I wouldn't notice.

    22. Re:Only Power Users will notice by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I might suggest your not clipping them to your nipples.

      --
      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...
    23. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

      That's insensitive TWAT, you insensitive dirk

      That's insensitive TEA-BEGGING COCK SUCKER , you inane drone.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    24. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Vairon · · Score: 1

      Maybe 5-10 years ago there were problems running Linux on some laptops but now a days it generally just works. I've run openSUSE and SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop on several Dell (Inspiron and Latitude), one IBM (Lenova) laptop and one Toshiba laptop with minimal or no trouble. A very long time ago (8+ years) I had a Dell Inspiron laptop which had issues with its internal wireless card but I just popped in a PCMCIA wireless card with Linux support until the internal wireless card was supported.

    25. Re:Only Power Users will notice by mcdmgsmith7475 · · Score: 1

      Excuse me sir, I believe your pun detector is broken.

      Geek alert! Geek alert! Geek alert!

    26. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      vista came on this laptop. there are NO xp drivers. but Ubuntu works like a champ right out of the gate. i made a xp vm, for office 2007 for school, inside virtualbox so it is mostly out of the way. there at the end i was typing (slowly) where the letters were 30-45 sec behind in word.

    27. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's an angry basement nerd? Probably yes.

    28. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 3, Informative

      vista came on this laptop. there are NO xp drivers.

      There are actually entire lines of computers that came with Vista but were too slow to actually run either it or Windows 7 properly, and at the same time are too new for anyone to have made XP drivers. Like half the computers sold with Vista before 2009 or so.

      Never had any problems running Ubuntu on them though.

    29. Re:Only Power Users will notice by xtracto · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of people would notice if their laptop suddenly got a third less battery life.

      Not trying to troll but for me Linux has always used drained battery faster than alternative OS. I do not know what is the reason or the problem but from previous Linux versions I always got around 20% less time in Linux than in the other OS. (I remember about 5 years ago there even was a problem that Linux was writing a lot to the HDD and that caused battery train problems).

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    30. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Jurily · · Score: 1

      Geek alert! Geek alert! Geek alert!

      Congratulations, you have detected a geek on a website that labels itself "News for nerds".

    31. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I've just noticed the pun. Somebody mod me "too slow on the uptake".

      It's more an indictment of the average comic appreciation of whichever Slashdot users modded it funny. Ironically, only self-proclaimed Linux Power Users would ever actually laugh at that "pun" (and I feel the wrath of the OED compilers for using that term so loosely) and I suspect the sensitivity their sense of humour needs to be adjusted in the same direction as the Linux kernel's power consumption figures. Just because one idiot mods it funny doesn't mean that there's some hidden l337 Linux users gag in there. It's okay to admit you don't get it. Sheep.

    32. Re:Only Power Users will notice by SecondHand · · Score: 1

      > I'll probably get flamed for daring to say this, but what the hell

      Good thing you added this disclaimer!

      I've been working on Linux/laptop for the past eight years. No complaints. In contrary.
      When I receive a new laptop, I install Linux before Windows even has a change to boot.
      I know, it's your opinion against my opinion. But I'd just wanted you to know that some people do like Linux on laptops.
      Your mileage clearly varies.

    33. Re:Only Power Users will notice by luther349 · · Score: 1

      18% is a huge number relly the case if your running on battery power. and thats friggen sad the linux power mangement should be getting better and using every last wat as it should be but it seems they just get more power hungry with every relese.

    34. Re:Only Power Users will notice by silanea · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. My two year old Thinkpad runs perfectly fine under Linux. And laptops have been all Realtek or Intel or ATI or NVIDIA for years, with the odd Broadcom thrown in for good measure. Some models or rather: some brands are a bitch to get working - Yeah, I am looking at you, Sony! - but then again that has nothing to do with the machines being laptops and everything to do with them being designed by bean-counting imbeciles and slapped together by El Cheapo third-rate OEMS.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    35. Re:Only Power Users will notice by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Nothing that runs Vista will run Windows 7 worse. Windows 7 is better in low memory situations. So you have just spoken complete and utter nonsense. Only your Ubuntu line at the end stops me from suspecting you of being a Microsoft shill. I have one of the machines you're talking about, it's a Gateway netbook with an Athlon 64 L110 CPU and R690M chipset, very sweetly low power use under Vista. Unfortunately AMD did not contribute power saving to Linux so I get about half the battery life there. Under Windows 7 the system is notably speedier, both to boot and to use, but I can only resume from suspend once due to the graphics driver (suspend works fine with the VGA driver, but then graphics are what you'd expect.) Under Linux I get display trashing even with RenderAccel disabled, let alone Composite. I'm using some weird beta driver or something for video on 7.

      Anyway, there is no such thing as a computer which runs Vista better than Windows 7, absent driver issues.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Only Power Users will notice by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it's a the config issue as well, such as how long to wait before flushing a cache to disk and how big the cache can get before flushing. Though you can always tweak these setting, but not many people to. If that's the problem someone will have a fix fast

      But I don't that's the issue here. 2.6.38 and 2.6.39 have been doing a lot of work to get rid of the BIg Kernel Lock and improving DRM + KMS which are major architectural changes, and it will be a while before some of the side effects are ironed out.

    37. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      I am going to quote what I wrote so that you can read it again:

      There are actually entire lines of computers that came with Vista but were too slow to actually run either it or Windows 7 properly

      Windows 7 may be faster on low memory machines than Vista, but that's like saying that a turtle is faster than a slab of concrete. The problem is that there are zero versions of Windows that run properly on low resource machines with no XP drivers.

      Even the ones with XP drivers are often hopeless. I've seen XP run on a Pentium M from that era -- which it does admirably for exactly as long as you don't install antivirus on it, after which point the entire machine grinds to a halt because on a machine with 512MB of RAM, having the virus definitions in memory make the difference between having just enough memory to run a web browser and a productivity suite to having constant disk thrashing.

    38. Re:Only Power Users will notice by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      ARM SoC, is even worse from a drivers standpoint. There basically aren't any open drivers for the graphics o videor codec portion of the chips, and just about every manufacturer seems to use a different memory management code. Why do you think there's such a problem updating android version on phones? Each version on android rests on a different kernel version, and each new version requires a rewrite of the proprietary drivers of that platform. Linux devs write for laptops because they want to use them.

    39. Re:Only Power Users will notice by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, I do feel a little silly having read your comment, although I've also read a lot of reports of people running Windows 7 successfully on pretty limited hardware. Long boot and application load times, but otherwise no big deal.

      I do agree that lots of machines have shipped with less RAM that is really necessary. I've done the 1GB->2GB shuffle on two netbooks and a desktop so far. The desktop came with Vista. It actually claims to max out at 2GB, it's a Gateway GT5475E and I forget who made the mainboard but they're tolerably reputable. I got it super cheap. It runs Linux nicely but right now I use it for Netflix, thus XP.

      To my mind, Windows has not really been usable with less than 2GB since the first time I booted it on a machine with that much and saw the results. I have 8GB on my desktop machine; I'm not sure how that actually works out with PAE, but XP only reports 3GB. I haven't even looked into whether that actually means per-process or if I really can't use any more RAM because I don't care; I only game on XP, and run Firefox enough to get patches, mods, and so on. I do run an Antivirus but I have three cores so who cares :p I run Natty normally, I have nVidia so it actually works, and it's plenty fast enough until I get a lot of disk I/O going.

      Anyway, your point about the machines is taken, but all they need is more RAM. Many machines will now take 4GB in a single SODIMM slot so it even applies to subnotebooks and the like; you can get machines beyond the point of credibility. Although personally, I think any single-core Atom is a terrible shame...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    40. Re:Only Power Users will notice by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      "Scotty, beam me up. Kirchhoff."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    41. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Anyway, your point about the machines is taken, but all they need is more RAM.

      Sure, assuming you're the Slashdot reader willing to install it yourself rather than Joe Sixpack who has to pay Best Buy $200 to add $40 worth of memory to a $150 computer. And assuming it's even upgradeable -- some of the cheaper laptops actually have the memory chips soldered to the motherboard. Or they just don't support anything more: A 1.4GHz Pentium III-S will still thoroughly embarrass almost anything Atom-based, but a lot of those motherboards max out at either 512MB or 1GB.

    42. Re:Only Power Users will notice by Frederico+Camara · · Score: 1

      Yes! It was like finding a needle in a needlestack.

  2. Linus Torvalds and regression? by kvvbassboy · · Score: 1

    I am probably being extremely naive, but isn't Linus very much against any kind of regression in a major release? If I remember right, some important guy left the project over an argument concerning regression in the package he was maintaining.

    1. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's true. But in all fairness it has happened to other systems as well. Bill Gates didn't like regression and some guy left because of an argument concerning some type of regression.

    2. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's true. But in all fairness it has happened to other systems as well. Bill Gates didn't like regression and some guy left because of an argument concerning some type of regression.

      Stuff happens.

      The real test is seeing what people do AFTER "stuff happens".

    3. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by DirePickle · · Score: 2

      I don't know--this seems really common with the last dozen kernel releases or so. Power regressions, file system regressions, graphics speed regressions, blah blah blah. With every new kernel release Phoronix reports some serious regressions in various subsystems.

    4. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by asdf7890 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is presumably not an intentional regression though, more likely just some new/updated code that is causing the CPU to be more busy when the machine is effectively idle than it was previously. It isn't like someone said "hey, Linus, do you mind if I make the kernel eat more power?"!

    5. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by h4rr4r · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ever notice it is only Phoronix reporting that?
      When did steam come to linux again?

      Sorry, but I want to see this backed up another source before I just go believing it.

    6. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, what Linus is focused on is breaking user code - if it worked in a released kernel, you will not break it in any future kernel. I don't think there's any strict rule that performance must always be better or power consumption lower. Particularly if you're not doing something "right" and have to add additional checks/locks/synchronization for corner cases that can slow you down, they generally value correctness over performance. That's the case in many of Phoronix' sensationalist news, a development release is very fast but when you make it work 'right' the performance is no longer that impressive. That stuff will happen as close to the bleeding edge as most of the things they report on are. Of course, they do find real regressions too but it's easy to get the wrong impression...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm on .38 on multiple computers and I'm not seeing these issues, perhaps it's a configuration error on their end (assuming they compile the kernel themsleves for testing) or a configuration error on whatever distribution they test with?

    8. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ever notice it is only Phoronix reporting that?

      Do you know of any other organization with a large automated regression testing system for linux kernels? That's not just me being snarky, its a serious question - who else beside phoronix is doing this sort of wide-scale testing on a constant basis?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    9. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Ever notice it is only Phoronix reporting that?
      When did steam come to linux again?

      Wine 0.9.6x, as I recall...

    10. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't use laptops, they spend all day in the basement.

    11. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And reporting it... anyway.

    12. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pah! Why on earth would a kernel be doing more work? That means they're doing something more inefficiently, that's a regression. However, the kernel is now a pissing contest between vendors and he who get get their shit in for their employer is the name of the game. Regression tests aren't a concern, neither is pissing off everyone else that doesn't use shitty feature X that's causing it.

    13. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run my recently upgraded desktop (Core i5-2500K) through a power meter and it is very easy to notice - Ubuntu 10.10 (kernel 2.6.35) idles at about 30W, while 11.04 (2.6.38) goes up to 35W. That's about 20% more.

    14. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have noticed that since using the 2.6.38 kernel my hard drive power saving feature seemed broken. It was continuously trying to park the hd arm when idle and the next millisecond boot it up again. Issuing the command sudo /sbin/hdparm -B 254 /dev/sda seemed to work.

    15. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      One would expect that there is some sort of automated performance regression suite that is run regularly (say, daily) to catch offending commits.

    16. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's about 20% more.

      No. (35-30)/30 = 5/30 = 1/6 =~ 16.7%.

    17. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Puff_Of_Hot_Air · · Score: 1

      That's about 20% more.

      No. (35-30)/30 = 5/30 = 1/6 =~ 16.7%.

      Or roughly; 20%

    18. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it is that Wayland nonsense eating up more CPU cycles and using less of the GPU.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    19. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MOD UP -
      article has NO mention of the toolchain and build settings used to build - which would have a HUGE impact on the efficiency
      of the code (and therefore power consumption)

      further - similar differences in userland would have the same impact.

      blaming the kernel could be premature here

    20. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I don't mod AC's up.

    21. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by DAldredge · · Score: 0

      Well Microsoft has one for Windows so someone must have one for Linux judging by how many people on /. insist that Linux is better in every way than Windows and that the Linux dev/testing process is miles ahead of the Microsoft one.

    22. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well Microsoft has one for Windows

      Really? MS does nightly regression testing?

    23. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by macshit · · Score: 1

      Do you know of any other organization with a large automated regression testing system for linux kernels? That's not just me being snarky, its a serious question - who else beside phoronix is doing this sort of wide-scale testing on a constant basis?

      I can't answer your question, but Phoronix's testing and benchmarking is notoriously bad, and anything you see there needs to be taken with a gigantic nugget of salt. At best, it's a hint to look around and see if you can find any similar result from a more reputable source.

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    24. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Wayland is only in the repositories; it isn't part of the default install yet.

    25. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Heh, the last ubuntu I ran as my host OS was 10.04 iirc, and it had the intel gfx regression (couldn't even muster the massive overhead of frozen bubble or youtube...

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    26. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, a 38 police special will do a dandy job on any computer!

    27. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's about 20% more.

      No. (35-30)/30 = 5/30 = 1/6 =~ 16.7%.

      Or roughly; 20%

      Or approximate 22.5%

    28. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Yes, a 38 police special will do a dandy job on any computer!

      Not true. I remember about ten years ago someone talking about a demo they saw of a fault-tolerant computer where the salesman emptied a .45 automatic into the computer while it was running and it continued working happily despite the damage.

    29. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Now redo that just updating the kernel and get back to us.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    30. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      Pah! Why on earth would a kernel be doing more work? That means they're doing something more inefficiently, that's a regression.

      I didn't say it wasn't a regression. I said it probably wasn't an intentional regression (i.e. a change made knowing it would cause incompatibility or inefficiency with things that were compatible/efficient before).

      It may not even be that more work is being done at all: it could be a problem somewhere in hardware initialisation code that is causing something to not have its power saving mode activated where it previously did: it is not at all inconceivable for a bit of code that usually runs once at boot to have a long lasting effect like this.

    31. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Remember that when 2.6 came out, Torvalds himself decided to stop keeping separate stable and development kernel trees. Arguably, there wasn't a lot of point - most Linux distributions add all sorts of patches anyhow, it wouldn't kill them to add another patch here and there if such a regression does come up.

      So now, such a regression does come up occasionally. Doesn't matter if it does - it's not like RedHat or SuSE are going to ship the latest 2.6 kernel without testing and patching where appropriate anyway. It's the likes of Ubuntu which are going to get stung - with such fast release cycles, it's inevitable that they either choose between running an older kernel which has had a chance for any major bugs to come to light and get patched or they run a newer kernel with a couple of extra features but a higher risk of nasty bugs.

    32. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by amn108 · · Score: 1

      They do. But then the reports get through to the managers, and they feed the papers to their closest office paper shredder or archive the emails, and proceed to write cryptic blog entries on how they had to scrap feature X because users wouldn't care or something like that.

    33. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by luther349 · · Score: 1

      power mangment is always a issue. computing is moving away from the massiv desktops to laptops netbook tablets phones and who knoes what next but the point is they all run on batterys. and 18% drop in battery time is big.

    34. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by amn108 · · Score: 1

      What do you base your criticism of Phoronix on, exactly? At best you draw attention to yourself and not to how bad they are or are not. I've been reading them for a couple of years and even though perhaps they haven't won awards for their journalism or website usability, the information provided SEEMS credible enough and worth a read. Certainly not "notoriously bad" or to be taken with a "gigantic nugget of salt".

      Maybe YOU could build and benchmark a couple of stock kernels on a simple-as-brick Thinkpad T60 laptop better and clue us in as to where THEY have failed?

    35. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by amn108 · · Score: 1

      Do you run the Unity thing? It uses Compiz, which uses some multimedia timers and the graphic hardware, as opposed to plain good old Metacity on Ubuntu distributions prior to 11.04 which draws stuff using simpler hardware subsystems and no fancy timers etc. Just 5W seems even too good, i'd imagine Unity+Compiz drawing a bit more of a difference.

    36. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by amn108 · · Score: 2

      run lm-profiler (part of laptop mode tools if I recall correctly) and see what demands that your hard drive be awoken from sleep :)

    37. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by yahwotqa · · Score: 1

      You're supposed to mod worthy *posts* up, not worthy users. It is not a popularity contest. Or at least it wasn't supposed to be. We can see on parent post how perverted the mod system has become here.

    38. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      What do you base your criticism of Phoronix on, exactly?

      How about because they're the Daily Mail of tech news? Did you sleep through the years of bullshit about Steam and UT3? Ever noticed the fact they sound the klaxons five minutes after any minor bug in a 2.6.X-rcY kernel is found? How about the fifty pages of graphs per article just to deliver fifty times as many ads?

      Because that's what it all boils down to: Phoronix only exists for the sole purpose of trolling sites like Slashdot so they can rake in the cash. If I wanted hardware benchmarks there's no shortage of sites for those that are actually run by people with a clue, and if I want Linux news I go read Heise's site.

    39. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      I believe there is a set of automated build loops for the kernel that are used to trap compile time and other non hardware specific errors, but effects such as this one are far harder to automatically detect.

    40. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Desler · · Score: 1

      What do you base your criticism of Phoronix on, exactly?

      The constant claims of "Steam for Linux is just around the corner!" for years now? The fact that they did a comparison of a BSD against Linux but tested the BSD from a debug build? It's all sorts of things like that that add up to give them little credibility.

    41. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by fuzzix · · Score: 1

      I run my recently upgraded desktop (Core i5-2500K) through a power meter and it is very easy to notice - Ubuntu 10.10 (kernel 2.6.35) idles at about 30W, while 11.04 (2.6.38) goes up to 35W. That's about 20% more.

      I believe 2.6.36 introduced a problem with DRI on intel and some other video chipsets which led to a shitload of kworker wake ups. One of my laptops running Arch benefitted from a kernel parameters suggestion over here but by that stage I had a menu.lst as long as your arm full of attempts at a functional system (e.g. kernel ... nohz=off highres=off pcie_ports=compat...) each with small, incremental improvements.

      You can't catch every regression without owning all hardware and infinite time :)

    42. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, both RedHat and SuSE have automated regression testing farms. Some developers (filesystem developers, thanks to SGI and their tools for XFS development which are filesystem-agnostic) also have automated regression test suites that they run after a round of changes and from time to time.

      There is a whole "linux testing project" that runs many of the standard industry benchmarks and all regressions are investigated (not "resolved". depends exactly why the regression exists, sometimes it is a side-effect of a change that is too important to lose).

      And the ARM people regression test kernels all the time, including for power management issues. But x86 is not big on power management. I don't think there is a regression test farm for *POWER MANAGEMENT* on X86.

    43. Re:Linus Torvalds and regression? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you see how much steam you can get out of your computer with 30% more electric power? Steam with Linux IS TRULY BEING RELEASED!

  3. uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think Microsoft has a patent on this. Not power management, I mean regressions. Like Vista or Windows 98 or Windows ME.

    1. Re:uh-oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or DOS 4.0 and DOS 6.21, you damn newb.

    2. Re:uh-oh by shentino · · Score: 1

      With MS's track record I think they're their own prior art.

  4. moronix. again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    nothing to see here, move along

  5. Magic "200 line" scheduling fix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Due to the inclusion of the magical "200 line" scheduling fix?

    1. Re:Magic "200 line" scheduling fix? by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 2

      Yes, it's probably due to that one thing you heard about.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
  6. Moronix test suite by Sene · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Would be handy if the suite (or the user) would actually produce graphs with different enough colors to make sense which line is which...

    1. Re:Moronix test suite by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Would be handy if the suite (or the user) would actually produce graphs with different enough colors to make sense which line is which...

      Different colors require too much power.
         

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Moronix test suite by ElusiveJoe · · Score: 1

      Care to fix it? It's open source.

  7. Slow news day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So slashdot releases bug reports as stories these days?

    I mean, if at least the bug report was interesting and had some analysis for those of us that like programming related topics...but the article says it still knows nothing about the cause. How boring. Why this is news? There are probably lots of regressions in the Linux kernel each month, as in every large software project. At least wait until they fix it, so we can have a decent history.

  8. Re:"anonymous reader" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    you're an anonymous reader.

  9. Overheating probs by blockhouse · · Score: 2

    Well, that would explain a great deal why my Dell laptop has been overheating and shutting off without warning since that last kernel build. It's shut off three times today and I haven't even done any intensive computing.

    Methinks I need a new box.

    1. Re:Overheating probs by bmo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >you think you need a new machine

      Either that or open it up and blow out the dust.

      Works wonders for overheating, dontchaknow.

      Cheap/easy fixes first. Always.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:Overheating probs by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 2

      Exactly. I had a Latitude D830 whose CPU was running at a more or less constant 212-218F and was virtually unresponsive. After blasting some canned air into the vent on the sides and back it started working like new.

      I talked to the help desk guys about it and it's a pretty common occurrence with Dell laptops. Seems like a major design flaw to me.

    3. Re:Overheating probs by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > CPU was running at a more or less constant 212-218F

      I have machines with fans either dead or completely removed that don't run that hot.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Overheating probs by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 1

      It's what the system monitor reported. I usually run VirtualBox with Windows, NetBeans, JBoss, and run maven builds constantly, so it was pretty busy. I burned my finger when I touched the vent to feel how hot the air was.

    5. Re:Overheating probs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just dell, I've seen it farily equally across HP, Dell and IBM/Lenovo.

      Might be something to do with most of them putting the air intake for the processor cooler on the bottom of the laptop, just where people put it on stuff that's hairy or full of fibres.

      If you take it apart you often see a nice 5-8mm thick layer of felt on the intake side of the heat sink,

    6. Re:Overheating probs by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      You might need to replace the fans. I need to do that every 2 years or so in my latest ThinkPad. It is the only thing that breaks, but it is starting to fail for the second time now, just as the laptop is turning 4. The laptop is still fast enough, so to replace fan or replace laptop?. Fortunately the fan only cost $100 to replace with official spare parts and Lenovo has a nice official online guide on how to do it

    7. Re:Overheating probs by luther349 · · Score: 1

      all laptops like to overheat these days heh. i face a fan on mine to keep the case cool.works better then even a chill pad. seems keeping the top keybord area cold is just as inportant as the bottom.

    8. Re:Overheating probs by luther349 · · Score: 1

      you must be kidding abought the cost of the fan. its a 12v dc fan its not 100$. buy any old 12v fan of that size. if its a plugin fan the replacment is pretty straght foward. if its solderd on you have to splice the new fan in. total cost of parts off ebay 1-5$.

    9. Re:Overheating probs by mrmtampa · · Score: 1

      Has anyone tried a laptop cooling pad? I've seen a few for under $20 US.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
    10. Re:Overheating probs by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My three thousand dollar HP laptop choked itself with dust, too. It's not a problem with Dell laptops. It is a major design flaw. It's not clear what can be done about it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Overheating probs by hey! · · Score: 1

      Granted, but I had the exact same problem crop up yesterday *immediately after upgrading the kernel*. It could be coincidence but if enough people suddenly discover they have to clean out their fan heatsink then there's probably an additional factor at work.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    12. Re:Overheating probs by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      It is laptop fan for the cpu and graphics processor. It is one piece of custom shaped aluminium and copper with a small fan embedded inside the cast. I actually think it is a fair price for a custom replacement part. Though I could check again if the fan inside the piece is reachable, but since the issue is that it gets looser and not that it breaks, I doubt I can make it better.

    13. Re:Overheating probs by luther349 · · Score: 1

      eh compaqs had the defect to of the fan coming off its housing and cousing heat issues.

    14. Re:Overheating probs by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Get yourself an IR thermometer. You don't need to trust what the software is telling you.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  10. Power Management Recession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh, god! throw money at it, with haste!

  11. Choice by marcas1 · · Score: 1

    Some of us need power for our computing clusters; some of us need battery capacity for their laptop
    I didn't compile a kernel for a while,
    but last time I lost myself in menu-config and I saw I could build Linux kernel for a high consuming datacenter or for my laptop
    It is a legitimate choice to compile Linux kernel to enhance calculus or to save my battery on my laptop
    is it really Linux kernel that increase power consuming or is main stream Ubuntu with Gnome Applets burning Watts for nothing ?

    On my apple laptop I quit energy-vorous applications like Google Earth, and lower down contrast to get more left battery time. And it works
    I would hate that the seismic cluster of my Institute get less cylcles but if power is a constraint (think about japan crisis) I know I could fix my Linux kernel to be more energy-saving. And I am quite confident I could get the better ratio.
    On my laptop I've to choose the best distro. Who could help me?

       

  12. Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's open source. All the programmers will get together and exam the code and fix it! That's the power of open source - it's just like the million monkeys, you just have to keep waiting until the monkeys happen to get it right. Maybe this wouldn't be a problem if they weren't obsessed with changing the damn thing so frequently.

    1. Re:Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well said. If they spent more time masturbating they'd have the most secure operating system.

    2. Re:Don't worry! by mcdmgsmith7475 · · Score: 1

      I completely agree. It WILL be fixed in a Jiffy!

    3. Re:Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aggressive updating & enhancing. Funny, I thought the open market was supposed to perpetuate the better-faster-cheaper ethic. It's almost as if the spirit of competition is only alive and well outside of the commercial market. Personally, I can cope with a few inefficiencies from release to release, with output and proficiency like the kernel devs flex.

    4. Re:Don't worry! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I don't see how masturbation would help. Ever try programming when some of your keys no longer work? It makes for very interesting variable names.

      But I guess real programmers lay a sheet of saran wrap over their keyboard before they start fapping.

    5. Re:Don't worry! by cynyr · · Score: 1

      http://xkcd.com/378/

      No worries for real programmers...

      --
      All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
  13. It's just that runtime power management... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... needs to be enabled manually it seems:
    for i in `find /sys/devices -path "*/power/control"` ; do echo auto > $i ; done;

  14. Well... here's a confirmed recent bug. by masterwit · · Score: 2

    Power consumption raised significantly in natty
    this is the actual confirmed (4-13) bug report on the Launchpad at least a particular instance.

    Personally I do not run the extra baggage of Ubuntu on my mobile linux device. (netbook)

    When did they start putting unconfirmed or untested bug reports on Slashdot? Sure TFA says much to warrant further investigation... but not to have people like me get curious. (Just my opinion)

    --
    We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    1. Re:Well... here's a confirmed recent bug. by masterwit · · Score: 1

      I may be referring to the wrong distro, oops.

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    2. Re:Well... here's a confirmed recent bug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well you are a Slashdot subscriber, no one's really expecting you to be capable of getting your facts straight.

    3. Re:Well... here's a confirmed recent bug. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Personally I do not run the extra baggage of Ubuntu on my mobile linux device. (netbook)

      Personally I run ubuntu-minimal on my EEE 701. Best experience I've had with a computer, period, since Jolicloud fucked up their launcher. Everything works, and works flawlessly all the time. I only wish I had a faster machine which worked so well.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Well... here's a confirmed recent bug. by masterwit · · Score: 1

      It actually is the right distro tyvm.

      And yes I am inexperienced in these matters...and I do it for the ads in public terminals.

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
  15. I agree, common users do not use Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    EOM

  16. Re:"anonymous reader" by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    No, he is Anonymous Coward. It is not clear if he reads anything (other the two words that he quoted, of course).

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  17. Linux on laptop by fnj · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why would anyone want to run linux on a laptop? Well, I run linux on my laptop. At first I had it set up to dual boot, but after months of not using the Windows partition I canned it and have never missed it. During the period I had both operating systems set up, I could compare them. Windows (Vista as installed at the factory) was dog slow and buggy (and before you poke fun at Vista, XP was just as bad on other laptops as received). Linux was snappy, remarkably stable, and supported the hardware very well with the exception of the oddball fingerprint reader which was a crappy idea anyway. It is a Lenovo X301 with SSD. If you stay away from Dell crap, 95% of laptops are pretty routine for linux. Even a lot of Dells are fine, but too many of them have oddball crap that is problematic.

    I have successfully installed and run various linux distros on a Compaq/HP X1000, an HP2133 mini, a Samsung X460, and the Lenovo, as well as maybe a couple of dozen desktops, including pretty-much-black-box Shuttles and Aopen minis, as well as oddball home-builts, over the last 10 years or so. Things have gotten a lot better over the last several years in terms of video and wireless support. Hardware support is so good currently that it is far better than Windows, where you have to track down drivers for every piece of hardware on your own.

    Having said that, my nephew has no trouble at all wiping the OEM Windows off of his laptops, one after the other, and installing his own fresh retail copies of Windows. He claims it performs much better without the bundled crap. I don't have the patience for that myself, and can't divine why anyone would WANT to run Windows, anyway.

    I do think you miss the point when you claim that it is a waste of "resources" for linux to go to a lot of work to support a myriad of hardware. The resources you speak of are open source software engineers who are basically in it for the love of the challenge. Most of them are not interested in working on boring apps, anyway, and the non-hardware-related kernel proper has plenty of manpower working on it. The part of the kernel that is not hardware related doesn't even need a lot of manpower. Those are guys with vary special knowledge. The development resources available to linux are basically unlimited. Yes, the software engineers paid by corporations to work on linux make important contributions, including hardware support, but a lot of guys, particularly in hardware support, are independent geniuses on their own time. A lot of pieces of hardware owe their linux support to these individuals donating their time as a sideline because they relish the work, and individually are interested enough in some particular piece of hardware for their own use to figure it out.

    1. Re:Linux on laptop by hairyfeet · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oh I'm not saying you can't do it, it just seems like a hell of a lot of work for very little gain. Personally I wouldn't wish Windows Vista on my worst enemy (although win 7 is quite nice, as is XP without the crapware) but the problem is unless you are an uber geek laptops are a mess and frankly the odds they'll even get 40% of them running stable is a big question mark.

      Plus this is probably THE absolute WORST time in history to be working on the things, as we are talking a HUGE fundamental shift in the way they are designed is going on right NOW this very second. Within less than a year CPU+GPU will be replaced by APU which means that unless you are running old crap its back to the drawing board. Oh and it'll be even MORE of a PITA, thanks to the APUs containing proprietary code for HDMI so that will all have to be reverse engineered.

      I'm just saying unless someone can bitch slap Linus "Plans? We don't need no steenkin plans!" Torvalds so he'll stop going Goatse on the kernel things will be hard enough without trying to hit a moving target with a live bumblebee, which is what laptops are in the current state. A wise engineer took one look at the guts of one and said "designed for the dump" and he is right, inside the things are a mess. and as I said you can't even buy by model number and be sure it will work, thanks to them playing chipset roulette with anything and everything.

      I just don't see how some guy in his basement, I don't care if he is frickin Einstein, is supposed to keep up with Torvalds AND all the new chipsets AND all the proprietary firmware AND the hardware roulette AND the constant breakage every time the distro gets a bug up their ass to change something fundamental. If you just wanted to say "if you run it on this it is strictly for hobbyist fun" I'd agree with you, but with so many FOSS evangelists saying "Linux is ready to go!" using it on laptops will just turn more people off.

      So if you can make it go more power to you, but I tried it on four bog standard laptops that came through the shop and frankly i spent more time trying to get the damned hardware to work than I did using the damned things. In the end it was simply easier to reinstall Windows than deal with the BS, and I have a feeling until things settle down on the laptop front like they have on desktop most folks are gonna have the same experience. At least with Windows you have drivers for all the hardware, and no spending hours on forums looking for CLI fixes.

      Oh and FYI you don't actually have to track down drivers anymore, Windows Update takes care of that for you. I've even had it find the funky USB TV Tuner drivers which frankly I never thought I'd see the day. I'm still waiting for Linux to have a "find me a damned driver!" button, like has been in windows for ages. Is it really so much to ask for?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Linux on laptop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      He's trollin'. If you're using a reasonably usability-oriented distro (e.g. Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint), you'll have virtually no issues. I've got a Toshiba Satellite lappy from 2010 dual-booting Win 7 (since I've already paid for the license) and a Linux partition I've tried a few distros on (Ubuntu, Fedora, Arch and Debian in that order for at least 6 months each). The only one that was even a little bit difficult to get up and running with was Arch, but that's really by design.

      Windows 7 on the other hand (while certainly a step up from Vista) has given me some real grief the few times I was had to use it for work. Now admittedly, this has not been a matter of hardware drivers (on both Linux and windows my video and wireless drivers had no problems). Rather, its a matter of going back to Windows after experiencing Linux and realising how much it sucked. Software you install can just stop working on you one day, every other program seems to want to gobble up resources with its own updater application, and I'm really genuinely irritated by the lack of any good terminal emulator. I want to encode some video with mencoder? The program runs fine, but using CMD to get at it is a royal pain.

    3. Re:Linux on laptop by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Windows XP. That's why half the time I install it on a machine made after 2002, it doesn't have (among other things) the NIC driver, which means no Windows Update. Solution? Boot Ubuntu LiveCD and download it from the internet -- works every time.

    4. Re:Linux on laptop by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      He's trollin'. If you're using a reasonably usability-oriented distro (e.g. Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint), you'll have virtually no issues.

      True. Debian runs on mine like a champ from the get-go, wireless and all. The only thing that troubles me is Intel's video driver. They just can't or won't write decent drivers for Linux, so performance takes a hit.

    5. Re:Linux on laptop by fnj · · Score: 2

      That is a most interesting link. I pretty much agree with Linus on everything. You want formal design, you get hurd. Or rather you DON'T get hurd. Not in our lifetime (mine anyways). You follow Linus' evolving ideas and methodology and you get an excellent working product which evolves better and better.

      All I can say about the guy in the basement is, yeah, there are lots of them, and yes, they keep up fine with Linus' ways and the difficulties you mention. I can't explain to you how this all works, because I'm not completely up to understanding it, let alone doing it, but it clearly does work, and I don't see any push whatsoever to fork linux for the purpose of freezing interfaces that do not have to be frozen. I mean, hey, the proof is in the pudding. There aren't many people who would argue Windows on the technical merits is better for servers than linux.

      I believe the time is not long when the same will hold true on the desktop and the laptop.

      It's not clear to me what fundamental difference APUs will mean, if by APU you mean the integration of the CPU and GPU on the same package or even same die. It's still a CPU and a GPU. OK, the interconnect is different, but there's nothing that says it automatically means the two pieces will be radically different than they are now.

      "Your mileage" will always vary. All I can say is that I have to wrestle with linux less than I had to wrestle with Windows back when I actually cared about it and had to use it.

      Linux doesn't need the "Find Driver" button (which NEVER ONCE worked for me in XP or Vista), because it already has an unimaginably rich set of drivers included right in the distro. I will readily admit I make my hardware purchase decisions based on what is likely or certain to be supported, in the sense that I always shy away from crappy off-brand network and wireless adapters. If you stick with Intel in those particular areas, you're in good shape. Having said that, I've been forced to violate that rule at times, and results in those cases have been getting steadily better in recent years, not worse.

    6. Re:Linux on laptop by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Oh I'm not saying you can't do it, it just seems like a hell of a lot of work for very little gain.

      Like... putting the CD in the drive, booting up and selecting 'install'?

      I know there are problems with recent Nvidia chips which require undocumented hacks due to their video switching between the integrated crap and the Nvidia GPU, but when I installed Ubuntu on my Toshiba last year it all just worked.

    7. Re:Linux on laptop by ladoga · · Score: 1

      Debian has been running so well on my 6 year old Thinkpad X41 that I haven't even considered buying a new laptop. I'll probably use it as long as the hardware lasts, be it another 4 or 6 years. After upgrading to SSD and aligning the partitions correctly to erase byte size it boots up to desktop (Fluxbox) in 7 seconds and basically everything that doesn't require heavy calculation from the CPU happens instantly. In practice it's much faster in all CPU non-heavy actions than any Windows laptop I've ever used (I know SSD has most to do with this). It's also ecological to buy stuff that lasts and not replace computers every another year.

      I've been repairing windows laptops lately (mostly Windows 7, some Vista) and my feeling is that almost without exception they are laggier and slower than what I'm used to. Even if these things have quadrupled amount of RAM compared to my old laptop, it really doesn't show in any meaningful way. Windows Vista and 7 seem to use atleast one gigabyte of RAM in order to just keep running as there is so much useless bloat loaded at any given time. Also many of these Windows 7 laptops seem to have audio issues on high CPU load. Even after fresh install audio will stutter when the machine is under heavy load (Ie. calculating primes).

      So why would I make a jump from provenly trouble free Linux on this laptop to Windows 7? Would it not be slow to run Windows 7 on 6 year old laptop with 1.5GB of RAM? Would the SSD be as fast using windows filesystems? Would the suspend and hibernate actions work correctly and as fast as they do in Linux (suspends in one second, resumes in one)? Why would I use Windows 7 as I even don't know how to use it's user interface (how to move and resize windows without grabbing window borders with mouse?). How about most of CLI tools that make my life easier? Would I be able to use most of my favorite software on windows? (On Cygwin maybe, but why the trouble?)

    8. Re:Linux on laptop by ladoga · · Score: 1

      The only thing that troubles me is Intel's video driver. They just can't or won't write decent drivers for Linux, so performance takes a hit.

      Intel drivers used to work great just few years back. IIRC it was a major rewrite of Xorg and introducing KMS that has caused the regression and the need for rewriting much of the driver code. (anyone who knows better please correct me). I think worst of that is already behind and the drivers are improving even for my old i915 chip. Some font or other rendering artifacts still appear now and then, but the performance seems to have improved lately (it was really pathetic few months ago, even glxgears was stuttering)

    9. Re:Linux on laptop by ladoga · · Score: 1

      Oh I forgot one thing. My libdrm intel is version 2.4.24-2 (fetched from 'unstable') xserver-xorg-video-intel is version 2:2.14.902-1. So if you use 'testing' where the really crappy intel drivers are right now, try to download newer ones from 'unstable'.

    10. Re:Linux on laptop by sisinka · · Score: 1

      Wow, we apparently inhabit completely different Multiverses. In my case, installing openSUSE on my lenovo laptop was almost as easy as it can only get.

      1) download the installer
      2) because the machine lacks cd, make a bootable usb pendrive (that was the only tricky part, took about 5 minutes to figure out)
      3) insert pendrive, start computer, click OK, OK, OK, OK... restart into the perfectly running system
      4) connect to the net with out-of-the-box working wifi and get me aaaaallllllll them softwares (way more comfortable than the application hunt on windows)
      5) er, even the webcam worked right away...

      Note: I'm no CS graduate, my field is linguistics, if anything at all

      So, thank you, paid and nonpaid geniuses, and tame your trolls, OP

      --
      My parser is a grammar nazi.
    11. Re:Linux on laptop by amn108 · · Score: 1

      Intel is a commercial enterprise. They don't need to write drivers if they have no incentive to do so. If they write drivers for something like Linux, it's simply because they have a hand in it.

      What they arguably DO NEED to do is provide a satisfactory specification of their hardware, so that the people who shout "open source! everyone can contribute" can put theirselves where their mouth is and start well, producing decent drivers for Intel hardware. As simple as that. And Intel did provide EXCELLENT documentation for at least two of their latest consumer graphic hardware offerings.

    12. Re:Linux on laptop by amn108 · · Score: 1

      Ditto. I've been running Ubuntu on my Thinkpad T43 for 5 years already, currently Ubuntu 9.10, ditching Windows and never having to look back. Thinkpads and Linux are almost made for eachother :) This is to the person who was complaining how laptop hardware is so exotic that Linux doesn't know what to do with it. Thinkpads (mostly) ship with reference Intel Centrino implementation, or whatever Intel calls their "notebook platform" these days, and as far as Linux compatibility goes, you HARDLY can do better. No USB-connected exotic wireless chipsets, etc. Occasionally you may get an NVidia chip in a Thinkpad X or T line, which negatively impacts the Linux experience (unless you use a binary driver by NVidia of course) but I consider it somewhat offensive, seeing how NVidia doesn't provide good specs for their hardware. Anyway, working on a Thinkpad T in Linux is a very very smooth experience. There are things that Linux is of course not ready for yet, I'd say professional photo and video work is one of them. I am a developer though, and really appreciate having a sensible command line at the reach of my fingers at all times, plus multitude of small tools that help me develop stuff, as opposed to large unwieldly monolithic applications with a baggage of drawbacks each.

    13. Re:Linux on laptop by amn108 · · Score: 2

      After installing Ubuntu every half-a-year for the fourth time, I was getting tired of "bridging" the gap between an out-of-the-box Ubuntu state to the one I prefer, so I simply wrote a bash script that does everything :) I mean it sets all my GNOME settings (through gconf- command line tools), sets up launchers and mime type preferences, icons, installs applications, even downloads and compiles stuff that cannot be found in repositories or in case I prefer a compiled version. Basically, when the script is run and done, I don't need to do much at all - the system is as it was before reinstall, except I am running a brand new distribution. Of course, one can argue why upgrade at all, but I do notice that the devs do get a lot of things fixed for major releases, usually.

    14. Re:Linux on laptop by silanea · · Score: 1

      Oh and FYI you don't actually have to track down drivers anymore, Windows Update takes care of that for you.

      Oh, does it? Strange. The last time I installed Windows 7 I had to fidge around about an hour just to get it to recognise the SATA controller. And I still have to hunt down driver updates for my mouse, my video card and my chipset myself. And the mouse is the only item even remotely esoteric. On Linux, on the other hand, the only thing I have to take care of myself is the NVIDIA graphics driver, and that only because I run beta drivers and therefore do not want to use the built-in update mechanism.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    15. Re:Linux on laptop by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      So your answers are, in no particular order, YouDisagreeWithMeThereforeYou AreATroll along with WorksForMeAtHomeItDoesReally and ImaginaryProblemsKillWindows with a bit of LinuxSupportsMoreHardwareThan Windows when in reality you get ThisIsAKnownProblemNowGetLost and YouAreUsingTheWrongHardware

      Isn't it kinda sad that I can answer EVERY SINGLE THING you and the other FOSS zealots here say with TMs? Doesn't it bother you, even just a little? You know why I can do that so easily? It is because you have been spouting the same bullshit so long there are TMs for it and have been for some time. You are like birthers, same shit, different day.

      So I suppose those THOUSANDS asking for help on ANY forum, you pick, are ALL trolls? Maybe you want to list them as paid shills? And you STILL haven't posted an answer to Torvalds and his "We don't need no steenkin plans" which is OUT OF HIS OWN MOUTH.

      Look if you want to dumpster dive, or use old hardware, then Linux works fine on a desktop. On a laptop, which is practically proprietary in a box? You'll spend more time fiddling with bullshit than you will using the thing. Tell me AC, when was the last time you had to go CLI? This week? Today? And I bet you had to go CLI when the last 6 month upgrade death march came out didn't you?

      But no, stick your head in the sand, label everyone that points out problems a shill, instead of asking yourself this fundamental econ 101 question: What am I doing wrong, that my competitors are doing right? Because NO B&M stores will touch you, from little shops like mine to big shops like Walmart. Do you think we like paying for Windows? It gives us a warm fuzzy?

      Nope the answer is your DRIVER MODEL IS ASS, your kernel is run by a douchebag, with every update TWO things break for every ONE fixed, your DEs seem to be run by Bizzaro "Quick, things am getting stable! Must break things by starting over, will cause much am joy for users!" and stability wise you are MAYBE at Win98. How many program lockups have you had? Freezes? Hangs? After I got away from Linux those things just faded away, like a fart in the wind...

      So believe what you want, nobody will be able to refute you, even with evidence that the users don't want you, or that given a choice users run in droves AWAY from you or that OEMs now look at you like the clap or that you have less marketshare than JavaME. Nope, instead just cheer that Linux reached 1% while doing what you do best: Ignoring users, ignoring problems, letting Torvalds Goatse the kernel, and generally acting like asses. Hey, maybe in another 20 years you'll be at 2%!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    16. Re:Linux on laptop by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip. I'll definitely try that, since my GMA 4500 MHD is currently getting its ass handed to it by a GeForce FX 5200.

    17. Re:Linux on laptop by goarilla · · Score: 1

      out of curiosity could you post your script ?

    18. Re:Linux on laptop by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      So your answers are, in no particular order, YouDisagreeWithMeThereforeYou AreATroll

      Nope the answer is your DRIVER MODEL IS ASS, your kernel is run by a douchebag, with every update TWO things break for every ONE fixed, your DEs seem to be run by Bizzaro "Quick, things am getting stable! Must break things by starting over, will cause much am joy for users!" and stability wise you are MAYBE at Win98. How many program lockups have you had? Freezes? Hangs? After I got away from Linux those things just faded away, like a fart in the wind...

      You are trolling. You are spewing out a bunch of unsupported assertions in a forum where you know they will not be taken well.

      Case in point, if two things broke for every thing fixed there would be less than one feature working in linux.

      Case in point you characterize linux kernel devs as people in the basement. 70-80% or code work is done in the offices of major corporations. The rest is spread out amoung people who may one contribute one or two device drivers.

      Case in point Torvalds has already answered why there are no plans. So linux can be whatever people want it to be. The biggest changes in 2.6.38 and 2.6.39 have been geared towards improving performance of databases (With large memory pages, and removing the Big Kernel Lock), and 3-D gaming/performance (improvements to GEM, DRM and KMS). Sure it may break a few things for 6 months or a year, but what improvement doesn't. Lets be honest how many things broke with vista, especially 64-bit vista?

      The fact that OEMs are trying to roll out linux distros is a huge improvement. 5 years ago almost nobody was trying to figure out ways to sell linux on the desktop. Sure there are some problems with proprietary shit (but not as many as you say, I've install Ubuntu on a netbook, and the only extra driver required was the graphics driver, and it was provided though the hardware drivers program. And yest there are problems with breakage on the cutting edge, but there are several distros that say well away from that edge.

      Their single biggest problem is that they weren't first. Even MacOS which doesn't have such technical issues has failed to do much more than to carve itself a niche as a "hip" OS. Linux might do better with a "think different" add campaign, but noone really has a linux advertising budget. (For the desktop at least) Even in the laptopmag.com article you gave, the reason for returns were mainly that it wasn't windows, not any inherent flaw or difficulty. People have spent 15 years on Windows, and they are comfortable with what they know. Those thousands of questions are normal or even expected because it's not the windows they have known and are used to.

  18. Re:"anonymous reader" by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

    that makes him a reader (he did the act of reading at least for 2 words).

  19. Assumptions... by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    At least run powertop and compare the output of lspci -vv for each kernel.

  20. FreeBSD by dave87656 · · Score: 1

    A little off-topic, perhaps, but how are some of the other *nix's doing in this respect, such as FreeBSD? Is FreeBSD even valid option for a laptop or a netbook?

    1. Re:FreeBSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run FreeBSD 8.2 on a ASUS A3H laptop and everything except the SD card reader works, the Broadcom wireless works with wpa_supplicant and overall I get better battery life than with Ubuntu. But that is just my personal experience.

  21. CAN WE STOP POSTING THIS VILE PHORONIX CRAP!? by RichiH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Phoronix is shit. Pure, grade-A shit. Worthless.

    They have _nothing_ of value to add to anything. Sensationalist crap which is not reported elsewhere, _because it it not an issue_.

    Regressions in the development kernels are part of the process. Even actively trying to avoid Phoronix, I have seen tons of those non-news about some random regression and the breathless follow-up that, lo surprise, they didn't just release but fix the issue. Woooooo!

    Phoronix is shit and it should be blacklisted globally on Slashdot and anywhere else. Stop linking to them, stop commenting on them (other than making others aware of this).

    Rant over.

    1. Re:CAN WE STOP POSTING THIS VILE PHORONIX CRAP!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They can sometimes be a bit annoying, but pointing out a bug in a stable kernel version is not useless.

    2. Re:CAN WE STOP POSTING THIS VILE PHORONIX CRAP!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good Linux news seems to be pretty hard to find these days. What websites do you follow for Linux news?

    3. Re:CAN WE STOP POSTING THIS VILE PHORONIX CRAP!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! Right on!

    4. Re:CAN WE STOP POSTING THIS VILE PHORONIX CRAP!? by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Slashdot article says development kernel, not stable. So does the parent.

    5. Re:CAN WE STOP POSTING THIS VILE PHORONIX CRAP!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regressions in the development kernels are part of the process.

      2.6.38 is a stable kernel, dipshit.

    6. Re:CAN WE STOP POSTING THIS VILE PHORONIX CRAP!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up! Phoronix has zero news value anyway, just a bunch of wannabe's....

    7. Re:CAN WE STOP POSTING THIS VILE PHORONIX CRAP!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u mad?

    8. Re:CAN WE STOP POSTING THIS VILE PHORONIX CRAP!? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      2.6.38 is a development kernel how exactly?

    9. Re:CAN WE STOP POSTING THIS VILE PHORONIX CRAP!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me an alternative that goes beyond "I installed [insert-coin] in a VM and me likes/dislikes it" and I might consider your suggestion, the regular "blogosphere" is far from being a better prospect IMHO-

  22. Its ok! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This can be caused by removed BKL, so bugged drivers or hardware used polling instead of event-driven notifies doesn't sleep on BKL but get more cycles and eat the battery. especially on multiprocessor systems

  23. 2.6.38 has a power management problem indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have the same experience. My laptop (Dell latitude D510) runs a lot cooler with an older kernel. I compared 2.6.38 with 2.6.32 in Archlinux.
    When I run in full load (infinite loop in python shell) 2.6.32 runs at 65C while 2.6.38 runs at 77C.

    That's a huge difference if you ask me!

    1. Re:2.6.38 has a power management problem indeed by wiresquire · · Score: 1

      Measuring heat may not be a fair comparison. Perhaps the 2.6.38 performs >20% better at that higher temp? How many loops are you getting in that period?

      I have a general perception that running fast for a short time and idling at low power for longer is generally better for low power consumption.

      Also heat may not necessarily be a good indication of performance directly. Just as battery life is not necessarily a direct indication of performance.

      Correlation != causation.

      ws

      --

      So does Anonymous Coward have good karma?

  24. 100C is the limit by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Dude, your software is lieing

    No cpu goes to 212F, it will MELT down, like fukashima.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  25. Not only power regressions by diego.viola · · Score: 1

    Not only power regressions but also bugs like this one apparently:

    https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=113985

  26. Re:100C is the limit by luther349 · · Score: 1

    dunno those old p4 systems would run pretty friggen hot and not seem to be botherd by it. my old c610 dell will cook your balls and not even kick the fan on. it has to get relly hot before you even hear the fan kick on.

  27. Not just the CPU by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    My radeon card no longer has functioning power management, as of 2.6.37. It used to be possible to echo dynpm to a sysfs interface and it would downclock the card. That no longer does anything. I did send in the bug to the maintainer, but it apparently is not a high priority item.

    1. Re:Not just the CPU by asdf7890 · · Score: 1

      That may lend credence to the theory I guessed at in another post above: a bug may have been introduced that stops certain power management options being detected and enabled.

  28. Depends on the type of regression by Sits · · Score: 1

    The reality of the "No regressions" phrase a bit more complicated. It help tremendously if the regression is noticed during the development stage of the kernel and can be narrowed down to a single patch. Further it also depends on exactly which way you regress - a "can't boot previously working and still supported system" functional regression can be treated differently to a "inserting a new disk is 0.1 of a second slower" performance regression.

  29. You must have interpreted the article as this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It appears that there's a big amount of users leaving Linux in the Linux kernel for the 2.6.38 and 2.6.39 development releases, including the kernel to ship with Ubuntu 11.04 next week. It's reportedly causing a 10~30% decrease in Linux usage on many laptop and Server Room computers."

    Because your reaction certainly seems fearful, and very "telling". Truth hurt? It would/could, if you interpreted the article introductory summary as the above. Especially since this kernel build apparently IS going into Ubuntu 11.04 itself, which isn't a test distro, but an actual to-the-public distributed one.

  30. how about basic features by perotbot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I lost the ability to hibernate my machines in the last few kernels, how about fixing that?

    --
    ~corporate tool, but employed~
    1. Re:how about basic features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone else know, besides you? You did file a bug report, did you?

    2. Re:how about basic features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lost the ability to hibernate my machines in the last few kernels, how about fixing that?

      thats a system problem not a kernel one both the 2.6.38 and 2.6.39 hibernate and sleep fine here

    3. Re:how about basic features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got fixed in 2.6.38.3 for me

    4. Re:how about basic features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lost the ability to hibernate my machines in the last few kernels, how about fixing that?

      hibernate works fine on the 2.6.38 and 2.6.39 kernels it must be a bug in your system or the kernel config used by your system not the kernel itself

    5. Re:how about basic features by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, kernel developer time prices starts at US$ 300/h offshore, US$ 500/h if you want someone from the USA. Or you could buy a SuSE or RHEL license (with support) and file a report, and they will track it down for you eventually. That's far less expensive than hiring a kernel developer. Maybe Canonical is selling licenses with paid support nowadays, you could ask them.

      Now, if you're too cheap, you will have to put some elbow grease into it, to make it easier for some eventual developer to fix your problem for free. Maybe you ought to start working at filing proper bug reports, learning how to compile your distro's kernel and bissecting to narrow down the culprit commit?

      Hibernation is stupid anyway. It is _always_ much unsafer than anything else you can do to a computer, unless everything is a VM and you freeze the VMs and associated hardware, AND *shutdown* (not hibernate) the hypervisor. You're much better off by making sure all you need is suspend-to-ram and shutdowns, *even in Windows*.

  31. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  32. Who's responsible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another regression courtesy of the kernel devs at Redhat? Sabotage, or rank incompetence. It's so hard to decide.

  33. Workaround by jawahar · · Score: 1

    http://lesswatts.org/

    --
    Slashdot = Sarcasm
  34. Power Consumption by mcdmgsmith7475 · · Score: 0

    This is like choosing a new Chevy Avalanche or a new Chevy Malibu. I don't care about power consumption. If it perfroms better and it suits my lifestyle, that's what I want. That's my choice! I have been a guinea pig with 11.04 and the Support has been amazing.

  35. Re:100C is the limit by CynicTheHedgehog · · Score: 1

    Um, 212F is 100C last I checked...

  36. Ubuntu... by disi · · Score: 1

    Phoronix tests 90% Ubuntu and therefore Ubuntu has a "Power-Management-Regression", not the Linux kernel?
    I haven't really noticed anything running 2.6.38 at the moment... I can still watch the complete "The Godfather" without power supply on my laptop.