Linux 3.7 Released

Re:Linux 3.7 Released by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 04:32 · Score: 2, Funny

Just proves what a wanker you are, then

Improved SAMBA client support? by CajunArson · 2012-12-11 04:33 · Score: 5, Informative

experimental SMBv2 protocol support;

This can't come soon enough for Linux clients. SAMBA already has SMBv2+ server-side support, with SAMBA 4 apparently even supported SMB 3.0. This is especially true for a high-latency connection through the VPN where the reduced chattiness of newer SMB protocols gives a nice performance bump.

You can post all day & all night about how NFS/CODA/GlusterFS/etc./etc. is better, but at the end of the day the CIFS protocols are supported by every Windows machine out there and should be supported by Linux too. Plus, if you are a free-software purist, then you could setup a 100% GPL'd installation with SAMBA servers and Linux clients, so it would totally make sense for the Linux clients to actually support the modern protocols.

--
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.

Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 04:46 · Score: 4, Funny

This is exactly what Linux was missing: Super Mario Brothers version 2.
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by Ynot_82 · 2012-12-11 04:50 · Score: 2

the ending's disappointing, though...
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by ByOhTek · 2012-12-11 04:53 · Score: 1

Are you talking about "The Lost Levels" Mario 2, or "Doki-Doki Panic" Mario 2?

--
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by rubycodez · 2012-12-11 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

purists can also get Linux into the door at the clients with windows desktops, the basics of authentication, file and print sharing are enough for most small/medium business. I've done that a few times over the last five years, clients are still happy as the server just works,and are adopting more Linux boxes including some desktops.
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by hobarrera · 2012-12-11 05:02 · Score: 1

Why do you state that linux "should be supported by Linux"? And why should I, as a *nix user, care about what windows supports.
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 05:15 · Score: 0

The lost Levels was v1.1
The official numbered 2 was really v1.1 of another seperate product.
Super Mario Bros 3 was the official numbered 3, and was actually labelled v3.0
So we never really had a SMBv2 before.
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by Shaman · 2012-12-11 05:33 · Score: 2

Uhm, since deployed Windows systems largely don't support SMB 2.x much less SMB 3.x I fail to see how this is a major failing on the part of Linux. Although I am of course entirely for supporting the current protocols.

--
...Steve
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 05:43 · Score: 0

He's talking about the real SMB2 released in Japan, before it was re-released as The Lost Levels.
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by kelemvor4 · 2012-12-11 05:51 · Score: 2

Uhm, since deployed Windows systems largely don't support SMB 2.x much less SMB 3.x I fail to see how this is a major failing on the part of Linux. Although I am of course entirely for supporting the current protocols.
Windows 8 supports SMB3, and MS claims to have sold 40 million copies already. Sources: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/27/us-microsoft-windows-idUSBRE8AQ18W20121127 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block#SMB_3.0
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by rsmith-mac · 2012-12-11 07:30 · Score: 1

And everything since Vista/Server2K8 supports SMB 2.x. Unless you're still running XP machines (in which case your time is quickly approaching) then your systems are probably already using SMB 2.x.
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by greg1104 · 2012-12-11 09:43 · Score: 1

Windows XP is on "extended support" until April of 2014. There are plenty of businesses that won't even think about upgrading to a later version until that deadline is only a few months off. Global market share for XP still 20 to 35%.
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by dbIII · 2012-12-11 13:50 · Score: 1

Last time I looked WinXP was still being sold on netbooks. I'm sure that was some time this year (2012).
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by Rich0 · 2012-12-11 15:53 · Score: 1

I don't care much about native linux support for Windows. However, the sad thing is that in many ways SMB is probably the best networked filesystem on linux just the same, even though it doesn't support half of POSIX. The closest competitor is NFS, and that is full of security issues.
Linux really needs a SIMPLE network filesystem solution that is secure and functional in all routine modes of operation. No, I don't want to set up a kerberos realm and openafs/etc.
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by dbIII · 2012-12-11 18:35 · Score: 1

Fuck simple - parallel NFS4 offers far more promise than you can get with simple. RAID just stepped off the single machine with redundant disks and moved into a pool of redundant servers, which offers a pile of improved latency, bandwidth and data redundancy options.
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by cthulhu11 · 2012-12-12 05:54 · Score: 1

... and maybe Red Hat will incorporate this oh around 2015 :-(
Re:Improved SAMBA client support? by Rich0 · 2012-12-15 02:47 · Score: 1

Lovely - kerberos...
I just love the thought of getting linux to boot with an nfs root filesystem using kerberos for authentication... If you don't implement kerberos, then it is insecure, which was half my complaint with nfs in the first place.

DRM by leromarinvit · 2012-12-11 04:37 · Score: 1

Signed modules? Yay for tivoization!

--
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.

Re:DRM by ssam · 2012-12-11 04:45 · Score: 1

except you control the keys
Re:DRM by dpilot · 2012-12-11 04:55 · Score: 1

Signed modules are a two-edged sword. They can be used for Tivoization, as you say. They can also be used by you to secure your own system.
Really, it's too bad that none of the major distributions have set this up. I've had TPMs on the past 2 work laptops. I've rather wanted to "take ownership" of them, principally to prevent anyone else from doing so. But it's rather a pain, supported, but in more of an expert-only mode, so I've never had the time.
Module signing would be same type of thing. If RedHat and Ubuntu put in place module-signing infrastructure in a user/owner empowering way, it would help security for everyone, and they'd occupy that space making it just a bit harder for someone else to move into the vacuum and take it over.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:DRM by Microlith · 2012-12-11 04:57 · Score: 4, Informative

Module signing has been in place with Fedora 18 and Ubuntu 12.10 as it's required to be compliant and get a signature on the bootloader for Secure Boot. I assume the code was backported.
Re:DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 05:01 · Score: 1

Signed modules are a two-edged sword. They can be used for Tivoization, as you say. They can also be used by you to secure your own system.
If root is inserting untrusted modules into his kernel, he has bigger problems than module signing can fix.
Re:DRM by leromarinvit · 2012-12-11 05:02 · Score: 4, Interesting

Only when you control the kernel/boot loader. I have a feeling that this will be used a lot by vendors to lock you out of your own devices, e.g. Android phones etc.
I'm as paranoid as the next geek, and the idea of secure boot etc. appeals a lot to me if done correctly. As in, if it's MY device, then I get to decide what runs on it, and no one else. But it's a tool, and as such it can be used both for you and against you. There can't be a technical solution, technology is dumb. We need a legal solution, either in the form of regulation or widespread adoption (and enforcement) of the GPLv3.

--
Proud member of the Ferengi Socialist Party.
Re:DRM by Bengie · 2012-12-11 06:16 · Score: 1

It takes little effort to sign but adds more security to your system. Maybe not a lot more, but more non-the-less.
Re:DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 06:19 · Score: 1

It's a security-in-depth measure. If attackers gets root access to a machine, they'll often load a rootkit as a kernel module.
If they can't load kernel modules, they may have to do something more intrusive, with a greater risk of discovery.
Re:DRM by wolrahnaes · 2012-12-11 06:47 · Score: 1

You're absolutely correct that if an attacker is performing actions as root you have a big problem, but if that attacker is able to succeed and inject modules in to the kernel you have much bigger problems. Root's actions can still be monitored, logged, etc. where a malicious kernel module can hide any evidence of its existence from the running system.
Having this feature enabled (and of course keeping the private key elsewhere if you build your own modules) means that a root exploit turning in to a rootkitted box requires a kernel bug rather than just insmod.

--
I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
Re:DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 08:37 · Score: 0

"technology is dumb. We need a legal solution"
You think our lawmakers AREN'T dumb? These are the same people who think that the way to get out of a fiscal cliff that is caused by massive debt, is to take on more debt.
Re:DRM by greg1104 · 2012-12-11 10:02 · Score: 1

Unfortunately secure booting is linked so tightly with vendor lockdown, tracking, and DRM concerns that I never expect it to be embraced by any open-source community. Hysteria over treacherous computing so far has been overblown. For example, the potential abuse of the unique ID features of the TPM chips were not sufficient reason for the boycott against using them when available they generated--especially if you're booting into an open-source OS.
It's pretty ridiculous that software like trusted grub isn't in mainstream Linux distributions, while Windows booting is easy to protect using the TPM with BitLocker. I boot my Linux/Windows Thinkpad using the Windows boot loader specifically because it resists evil maid attacks better when I'm traveling. The hysteria isn't limited to Linux; the same indefensible arguments are made by TrueCrypt. That acts as if TPM provides no protection against physical attacks, which is ridiculous if you look at how much work it takes to hack one.
Re:DRM by thebigmacd · 2012-12-11 10:19 · Score: 0

The fiscal cliff is an artificial construct, in that the location of the cliff is completely arbitrary, and set by politicians. If they decide to remove the fiscal cliff by agreeing to more debt, it goes away. It's not a tangible limit.
The fiscal cliff has nothing to do with whether the US can actually afford to service its debts, but the media plays it out that way.
Granted, I completely agree that more debt is ridiculous.
Re:DRM by spazdor · 2012-12-11 11:14 · Score: 1

the same people who think that the way to get out of a fiscal cliff that is caused by massive debt, is to take on more debt
Almost as dumb as the people who think a complicated economic problem which is being worked on by many very smart people with many postgraduate degrees, can be dismissed with a pithy one-liner and some informal layperson reasoning on Slashdot. Tell me, when global warming comes up, do you involuntarily regurgitate that old "maybe it's caused by the SUN, duh" chestnut too?
To address your specific objection; the lawmakers don't need to be smart here, it suffices that the people advocating for their own rights in court (e.g. owners of GPL-licensed intellectual property) be smart.

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Re:DRM by epyT-R · 2012-12-11 21:37 · Score: 1

It has so far been overblown only because it is just now becoming a real threat. This is mainly due to the introduction of new platforms that have become insanely popular. Think about it. All the new computing devices we have are, for the most part, locked out of the box. ..and while most people don't care to mess with their devices, they're still affected negatively because they do benefit from the efforts of those who do.
Re:DRM by aaaaaaargh! · 2012-12-11 22:26 · Score: 1

I think there can easily be a technical solution. Just put a switch on every computer. If it's in UNLOCKED position you may install a new operating system, if it is in LOCKED position you may not install a new OS and the whole boot process is locked down.
Re:DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 03:16 · Score: 0

Yup, I used to look after some IBM AIX RS6000 boxes which would only boot to single-user mode (for root password recovery etc.) if the key was in the right position.
Re:DRM by cthulhu11 · 2012-12-12 05:52 · Score: 1

Writing your own OS and applications from scratch, are you? Yeah, that's what I thought.
Re:DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 10:55 · Score: 0

It's not complicated. The propaganda is that it's complicated. If you spend more than you take in, you accrue debt. The only way to get rid of that debt is to either pay it off (making friends in the process,) or default on it (making enemies.)
The United States can not pay for its debt so long as it continues to spend more than it takes in. You can either raise taxes (up to a point. See the Laffer curve. While the exact numbers are uncertain and variable, the core principal is sound,) which is unpopular with your people, especially those who make money, or you can cut spending, which is unpopular with your special interests, or those who benefit from the money being spent on them. Stopping foreign wars would be popular with most of the population, but would make those who profit off of it mad. Cutting foreign aid would make other countries sad. Cutting social programs would make your low income groups mad. Stopping subsidization of farms, research, energy, and god knows what else would make those groups mad. Cutting all of them and moving to a flat tax that doesn't have exemptions would probably be the best way to save money and raise taxes without being unfair, but no one would vote on it because it would stop their chances of getting re-elected because you just made everyone mad at you.
Re:DRM by spazdor · 2012-12-12 11:18 · Score: 1

> It's not complicated
I cannot find a single person with actual qualifications in the field of economics who agrees with this assessment. The only people who insist that it's all simple enough for laypeople to address in 1 paragraph, are laypeople. Dunning-Kruger is everywhere when federal budgets are discussed.

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Re:DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 06:11 · Score: 0

I can't find anyone who thinks that taking on more debt to get out of debt is going to work.
Re:DRM by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-15 17:55 · Score: 0

World War II?
There is not a single economic fall that was not solved by government spending. Spend more in down times, tighten up when things improve. That is how it works.
Or was that not government deficit spending?
A government is not a business and should not be run as such.
Applying personal finance principle don't fit either.
Why?
Because the government can print money. The majority of the deficit is actually money owed to the US government. It is the debt owed to other countries and banks is what counts as actual deficit. This is just more ignorant bleating by under-educated teabagging fucktards.
Because money spent on non-black-hole things like tax cuts for the rich, starting two wars to enrich Halliburton is not the same thing as programs to get people to work.
What was one of the biggest contributors to post WW2 economic boom? Tax cuts? Corporate welfare? GI Bill? There ya go, government deficit spending that returned a huge amount of money back the the government(via taxes) and the economy.
Maybe if macroeconomics was required in junior and senior high school we would have less retards like you destroying our country.

Re:Who cares? by smittyoneeach · 2012-12-11 04:37 · Score: 1, Offtopic

They guy on First.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

UDP ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 04:38 · Score: 0

Why does vxlan transfer L2 packets using UDP and not TCP? I have also seen this on other L2 protocols like L2TP and PPTP ... just curious ...

Re:UDP ... by vlm · 2012-12-11 04:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why does vxlan transfer L2 packets using UDP and not TCP? I have also seen this on other L2 protocols like L2TP and PPTP ... just curious ...
TCP has a feedback loop when packets are lost... So you'd have that at both layers, the actual session and the tunnel.
Its an engineering thing where if you embed a feedback loop inside a feedback loop, things will be OK if you're VERY careful but most are not and you'll make a lovely oscillator and just blow it all to bits.
Fundamentally, UDP doesn't guarantee delivery so its OK to shove it inside UDP, and TCP has its own repair mechanism so you don't need to guarantee its sub-layers, so its not like you're missing anything.
Finally it just kills performance because TCP loves big buffers for each connection so you need megatons of ram until you start dropping packets and letting TCP police itself. Which meanwhile results in horrific latency. But if you tunnel over UDP, you don't really need much of a buffer on the tunneler itself and you'll overall end up with better latency specs. So its cheaper and works better. Hard to beat that combo...

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:UDP ... by dpilot · 2012-12-11 04:50 · Score: 1

I haven't RTFA, but looking at the things you want to transport, it looks as if you're tunneling other stuff - potentially including TCP.
Tunneling TCP over TCP is generally a Bad Thing. The flow control of the tunnel and the flow control of the tunneled can interact in really ugly ways. By using UDP to create the tunnel, when you send TCP over that tunnel there will be only one flow control.
This is from the ancient days of "PPP over SSH/Telnet", when it used to be possible to get a shell account, but not IP access, from many "internet providers".

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:UDP ... by advantis · 2012-12-11 04:52 · Score: 2

At that point you don't need the reliabilitiy and retransmission features of TCP. Once you stack the layers up, TCP will take care of that anyway, without running it over TCP again. Think IP: unreliable datagrams; you put TCP on it and presto: reliable, ordered, everything. Run a VPN, and you do it over UDP, and end up with something like IP -> UDP -> TCP, and then TCP again does its thing, without a care in the world about the layers below. Same principles apply with this new things too. If your underlying layers are flaky, you can't make them less flaky by adding more TCP to your cake. In effect, you make them even more flaky as each TCP layer tries to do its own retransmission and floods your line.

--
Question for religious people: where do unrepentant masochists go when they die?
Re:UDP ... by vlm · 2012-12-11 05:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

I forgot to mention one real life situation where UDP over TCP does not work.. UDP conceptually works pretty well with real time live streaming. "Here's 5 seconds of audio of the ball game". 5 seconds later, if lost, that packet is meaningless, don't bother re-sending it, the RX will just output 5 secs of silence or whatever. TCP does not understand that at all, so you can get serious problems with live streaming if you try to stick that inside TCP and experience significant network congestion. Buffers get bigger until they pop, "live" becomes randomly "tape delayed" based on recipient... Also TCP doesn't understand variable bit rate, so its ideas about buffer allocation bear little resemblance to what the codec actually wants to do.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:UDP ... by seyfarth · 2012-12-11 05:31 · Score: 1

Nice discussion! I have run OpenVPN over port 80 TCP in order to get past a firewall. It worked but a little later I tried port 80 UDP. It worked better. I was happy to discover an unblocked UDP port for my needs.

--
Ray Seyfarth, ray.seyfarth@gmail.com, http://rayseyfarth.blogspot.com
Re:UDP ... by elfprince13 · 2012-12-11 05:31 · Score: 1

Presumably the reduced overhead of UDP was considered by the developers to be a worthwhile tradeoff against the convenience and stronger guarantees afforded by TCP.
Re:UDP ... by TheLink · 2012-12-11 05:36 · Score: 1

UDP port 53 or port 500 are often unblocked.

UDP port 53 might be redirected to a local server in many places though.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold
Re:UDP ... by petermgreen · 2012-12-11 05:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

TCP tries to (and usually succeeds in) trasfer a stream of bytes reliablly and in the right order over an unreliable packet based system.
To achieve this two things have to happen
1: the sender must resend lost packets
2: the recipiant must hold packets after
However there is no way for a sender to determine if a packet has actually been lost or just delayed. So the sender must use a timeout to deem a packet as lost and retransmit it.
Now suppose someone builds a tunnel using TCP and runs TCP over that tunnel so your stack looks something like.
Application
TCP (inner)
IP
Tunneling protocol
TCP (outer)
IP
underlying network
Everything works fine as long as no packets are lost. However when a packet is lost by the underlying network the outer TCP layer freezes all transmissions through the tunnel until it has retransmitted the packet. During this time it is likely that the innner TCP layer will also deem the packet(s) lost and try to retransmit them (possiblly more than once due to the auto-adjusting timeouts used by TCP). Then when the outer TCP does recover it will deliver both the original packet and the retransmission from the outer TCP. This behaviour is very similar to what happens when a network is congested and make cause the inner TCP to unnessacerally back off the data rate.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:UDP ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 05:39 · Score: 4, Informative

I agree with your comments but want to add a clarification to your last paragraph for the benefit of all /. readers.
TCP needs enough buffer that it can hold a copy of each packet sent until it receives an acknowledgment because it may need to re-transmit the packet if it gets lost. Once the packet is acknowledged as having been received, TCP frees up the space. As such, there is a straight forward way of computing how much buffer TCP needs if you want to fully utilize the bandwidth of the bottleneck link along the path.
The amount of buffer is twice the round-trip time multiplied by the bandwidth of the bottleneck link (aka, "the bandwidth delay product"). More that this is a waste as it won't be used. Now, the effective round-trip time will increase if you have packet loss along the path. And congestion in the network (possibly made worse by the buffer bloat the previous post points out) will also increase the round-trip time. And the bandwidth of the bottleneck link is probably not directly knowable by the end hosts (although it can be reasonably estimated). Thus the amount of buffer space can be estimated a priori.
Note: you will still have to have this much buffer space to achieve full performance even if you tunnel TCP through UDP. It is just that you won't have to have much more than that amount. Also, having inner and outer TCP connections result in them fighting against each other, as you point out. (That is why it is not a good idea to tunnel TCP over TCP, not primarily because of buffer concerns.)
Note: you do need to have sufficient space for the inner TCP or it won't be able to operate at full speed. But you won't need double the space as you would with TCP within TCP (assuming you could solve the fighting among themselves issue).
Re:UDP ... by petermgreen · 2012-12-11 05:40 · Score: 1

it will deliver both the original packet and the retransmission from the outer TCP
That should have said
it will deliver both the original packet and the retransmission from the inner TCP

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:UDP ... by TheNinjaroach · 2012-12-11 06:26 · Score: 1

TCP needs enough buffer that it can hold a copy of each packet sent until it receives an acknowledgment because it may need to re-transmit the packet if it gets lost.
Thanks for the explanation!

--
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Re:UDP ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 19:10 · Score: 0

This is all true but having run a fairly sized vpn with TCP over TCP I found that TCP fast retransmits usually retransmitted the outer layer packet long before the inner layer timed out. Still not optimal for latency but far less damaging to the throughput of the inner layer.
Re:UDP ... by Rich0 · 2012-12-12 00:32 · Score: 1

TCP also need to buffer on the receive side, since it guarantees in-order delivery. If a packet gets lost then every packet after that gets through gets buffered up until the lost packet is retransmitted/received. Also, if the odd packet gets delivered out-of-order the the a few packets need to be buffered to sort them back out again.

Re:Linux 3.7 has bugs! by smittyoneeach · 2012-12-11 04:39 · Score: 0, Offtopic

We got politicians who will claim to fix all your problems. First, give them your liberty and your vote.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

kernel in c++? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 04:39 · Score: 1, Funny

kernel in c++? no? ill move on then,

Re:kernel in c++? by advantis · 2012-12-11 05:54 · Score: 5, Informative

And you need a kernel in C++ why? Because you can't get your head around objects that aren't enforced by the language? Or you can't get your head around doing error cleanup without exceptions enforced by the language? The Linux kernel even does reference counting without explicit support from the language.
Just to get a complete picture, I looked at some competing kernels (I skimmed over the source really quickly):
FreeBSD kernel - C, with objects and refcounts, similar to Linux
OpenBSD kernel - C, but I have a hard time finding their equivalent to objects and refcounts, and I gave up looking
GNU Hurd - C, and I'm not even going to bother looking around too much
XNU - C, but with I/O Kit in C++ - works only with Apple software?
Haiku kernel - C++, which is interesting in itself - but supports only IA-32?
Plan9 kernel - C
OpenSolaris kernel - C
I think it's pointless to look at the rest. All the others listed by Wikipedia are even more obscure than some of the above.
C seems to dominate the kernel arena, so Next time you post, I'd like to know what you think C++ would bring to the party. No, really. I've seen many dismiss that Linux isn't written in C++, but haven't seen a single one of these trolls (yes, I'm feeding you) say what that would accomplish, and I'm really really really curious. I'll throw a bone from the XNU Wikipedia article: "helping device drivers be written more quickly and using less code", and that seems to be the only bit written in C++, yet Linux does pretty well without, and apparently so do the majority (see above).

--
Question for religious people: where do unrepentant masochists go when they die?
Re:kernel in c++? by petermgreen · 2012-12-11 06:11 · Score: 4, Informative

IIRC modern windows is a mixture of C and C++.
As to what C++ achives it's the automation of tedious and error-prone boilerplate. Rather than manually incrementing and decrementing reference counts you can have it happen automatically as values are copied and overwritten. Rather than manually building procedure address tables for polymorphism you can get the compiler to do it for you.

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Re:kernel in c++? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 06:28 · Score: 4, Informative

Haiku kernel - C++, which is interesting in itself - but supports only IA-32?
Haiku have active ports to PowerPC, ARM and x86-64 in progress.
Re:kernel in c++? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 07:22 · Score: 0

c++ brings hookers and blackjack to the party. then the party gets wilder and wilder. then the police (Linus) shows up, lays a beatdown on everyone and bans hookers and blackjack for the foreseeable future. so from now on we all have nice, well-maintained parties.
but you always think back to that time you had that one really really awesome party. :)
Re:kernel in c++? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 07:30 · Score: 0

Yes, but there is a cost for that automation in the form of processor cycles and memory utilization.
Re:kernel in c++? by maxwell+demon · 2012-12-11 08:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

For any reasonable C++ compiler and well-written program, the cost is exactly the same as if you do it manually.
In some cases it will even be less because the compiler knows what's going on and can use that knowledge in optimization, e.g. replace indirect calls by direct calls where it knows exactly the dynamic type of an object, which is generally not possible for hand-written call tables.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:kernel in c++? by Rhacman · 2012-12-11 08:17 · Score: 2

I can't speak to kernel development but I did develop a data processing engine in C that incorporated design features more traditionally suited to C++ development like polymorphism, interfaces, run-time loadable components, etc. The choice of C was meant to aid with future porting to systems for which C++ compilers were believed not to exist. The system worked but not without encountering instances where someone who developed a component for the system misunderstood some aspect of the architecture and implemented something incorrectly or deliberately took a shortcut that broke the model. To help keep things clean and orderly we had a very rigid coding standard that (most) people followed but it was still not as clear to follow as it would have looked coded in C++. Training developers to code for it who were familiar with C++ took a bit more effort as well. All that said, while I wish we had done it in C++ I don't relish the thought of re-writing it from scratch to use C++ constructs.

--
Account -> Discussions -> Disable Sigs
Re:kernel in c++? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 08:34 · Score: 0

C++ is pretty good about only paying for what you use.
Re:kernel in c++? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:27 · Score: 0

achives it's the automation of tedious and error-prone boilerplate.
I know the g++ compiler is shit, but even without g++'s useless error messages, template<> is fucking arcane. I'd rather metaprogram with LISP.
Re:kernel in c++? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 13:39 · Score: 1

C elitests....
I used to be an assembly only kernel fanboi, but now i only use kernels written in direct machine code. Even hexadecimal notation is too high level for me.

Next up 64 bit Raspberry PI? by cod3r_ · 2012-12-11 04:42 · Score: 1

Yes please.

Re:Next up 64 bit Raspberry PI? by HaZardman27 · 2012-12-11 04:51 · Score: 1

Why? It's nowhere near 32-bit memory limitations, does it have a shortage of registers or something?

--
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Re:Next up 64 bit Raspberry PI? by Luyseyal · 2012-12-11 05:05 · Score: 1

Nah, but 64-bit gets work done twice as fast as 32-bit! Didn't you know? ;)
-l

--
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Re:Next up 64 bit Raspberry PI? by cod3r_ · 2012-12-11 05:12 · Score: 1

Well they've got 512MB ram now. The next logical jump is support for 8GB. Duh.
Re:Next up 64 bit Raspberry PI? by SuricouRaven · 2012-12-11 05:19 · Score: 2

There is some interest in ARM for low-power servers and server appliances. Support for more than 4GB of ram would come in useful there.
Re:Next up 64 bit Raspberry PI? by HaZardman27 · 2012-12-11 05:25 · Score: 1

But we're talking about the Raspberry Pi, a $25-$35 USD computer that currently has 512MB of RAM, and that's in the more expensive model.

--
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
Re:Next up 64 bit Raspberry PI? by micheas · 2012-12-11 05:48 · Score: 1

It depends on the work load.
IIRC on AMD64 most programs are about five to ten percent larger if they are compiled for 64 bit instead of 32 bit with a slight slowdown. However SSL and other programs that extensively use numbers larger than 32bits tend to be twice as fast on 64bit than 32bit. So if you are doing mostly authentication or ssl on your PI then 64 bit would make sense.

--
Work bio at MMWD
Re:Next up 64 bit Raspberry PI? by fnj · 2012-12-11 05:49 · Score: 1

Raspberry Pi is just the meme. Consider what the Raspberry Pi can do for 1/8 the cost the big players were charging us. Now imagine a 64 bit server for 1/8 what one costs now.
Re:Next up 64 bit Raspberry PI? by SuricouRaven · 2012-12-11 06:04 · Score: 1

I'm thinking NAS boxes. You want low-power, so they are mostly ARM already - but with 64-bit ARM, you could also throw lots and lots and lots of RAM in for disk cache.

Is Btrfs for real yet? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 04:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

Does it `Just Work' (tm)? I really want rolling snapshots ah la NetApp.

Sorry to be obtuse. Not much time for experiments.

Re:Is Btrfs for real yet? by ssam · 2012-12-11 04:48 · Score: 3, Informative

SUSE enterprise linux has offered BTRFS as a supported option since Feb.
Conservative folk wont touch it until they know its been used by millions of people for many years.
I use it with backups on ext4.
Re:Is Btrfs for real yet? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 04:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

The SUSE implementation of Btrfs is quite good. It's quite a bit ahead of the Btrfs support I've seen on other distributions and setting it up is pretty much automated by the installer. I agree Btrfs isn't stable yet and so shouldn't be used in production yet, but it looks like it is getting closer.
Re:Is Btrfs for real yet? by Andy+Prough · 2012-12-11 05:01 · Score: 2

Last I looked a couple weeks ago, openSUSE support forums are still advising that BTRFS should not be used on production machines - experimental only. I don't know if SUSE enterprise is giving different advice, but I doubt it.
Re:Is Btrfs for real yet? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 05:12 · Score: 0

https://www.linux.com/news/enterprise/systems-management/677226-suse-linux-says-btrfs-is-ready-to-rock
Re:Is Btrfs for real yet? by Andy+Prough · 2012-12-11 05:14 · Score: 1

That's great news!
Re:Is Btrfs for real yet? by dburkland · 2012-12-11 09:01 · Score: 1

For those running CentOS 6 you can get the latest BTRFS code by installing one of Oracle's mainline kernel packages from here: http://public-yum.oracle.com/repo/OracleLinux/OL6/playground/latest/x86_64/. I know I could compile my own kernel but there is no point when Oracle did the work for me. I am no fan of Oracle but what they are doing with the "playground" yum repository is pretty neat.
Re:Is Btrfs for real yet? by ulzeraj · 2012-12-11 09:34 · Score: 1

https://www.suse.com/releasenotes/x86_64/SUSE-SLES/11-SP2/#fate-306585
http://www.novell.com/documentation/oes11/stor_posixvol_lx/?page=/documentation/oes11/stor_posixvol_lx/data/posixvol_new_oes11sp1.html
I think there is the possibility that they might be planning to replace NSS on Open Enterprise Server with BTRFS.
Re:Is Btrfs for real yet? by ulzeraj · 2012-12-11 09:40 · Score: 1

I've forgot to add this funny piece of information:
SuSE Linux Enterprise SP2 doesn't support ext4. It will mount ext4 volumes as read only in order to facilitate migration from ext4 to supported file systems including BTRFS.
Re:Is Btrfs for real yet? by Lennie · 2012-12-11 12:12 · Score: 1

Have considered Ceph ?

--
New things are always on the horizon

Btrfs finally ready? by javilon · 2012-12-11 04:51 · Score: 1, Interesting

Is it finally ready for prime time? any one with experiences/horror stories?

--

When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."

Re:Btrfs finally ready? by GeniusDex · 2012-12-11 05:00 · Score: 2

I used to run btrfs roughly a year ago for half a year and had no issues with data integrety etc whatsoever. The downside at that time was that performance for working with loads of small files was noticably worse than with ext4. The result of this was that a dist-upgrade took more than 4 hours instead of the expected 1.5 to 2 hours it takes with ext4. Apart from that I had no issues whatsoever; performance on other loads was decent.
I occasionaly look for benchmarks showing that the small files performance is up to par, but so far I have been unable to find them.
Re:Btrfs finally ready? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 05:01 · Score: 0

I'm using it for two years now. havn't lost any data. but it is not ready for prime time.
Re:Btrfs finally ready? by diegocg · 2012-12-11 05:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

a dist-upgrade took more than 4 hours instead of the expected 1.5 to 2 hours it takes with ext4.
That's not due to poor small file performance in Btrfs, it's due to poor fsync() performance (which package tools like rpm and dpkg use quite a lot). In this new kernel version the Btrfs fsync() implementation is a lot faster.
Re:Btrfs finally ready? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 05:38 · Score: 0

I had a happy time with btrfs for six months or so on my home computer. When I wanted to upgrade my kernel for even fresher btrfs goodness I figured the new kernel wouldn't be able to read the old btrfs partition, since the binary format had changed. I moved my data to ext4 and it has lived there since.
Re:Btrfs finally ready? by Bill+Dimm · 2012-12-11 05:53 · Score: 1

Apparently SUSE Enterprise Linux thinks so, as of last week.
Re:Btrfs finally ready? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 06:36 · Score: 0

The People at Suse say it is, and is already supported in SLES 11 SP2 :
http://www.linux.com/news/enterprise/systems-management/677226-suse-linux-says-btrfs-is-ready-to-rock
Re:Btrfs finally ready? by Lennie · 2012-12-11 12:16 · Score: 1

You can use libeatmydata to disable the many fsyncs in dpkg which will obviously solve that problem, it might be smart to make a btrfs snapshot first. So if something bad does happen, you can go back to a working snapshot.

--
New things are always on the horizon
Re:Btrfs finally ready? by Rich0 · 2012-12-12 00:39 · Score: 1

How important are the fsyncs? I think a lot of software uses them due to some implementation decisions with ext4 (though Linus's decision to override the default settings set by the ext4 team alleviated many of them). However, with btrfs being copy-on-write I would think that you'd be far less vulnerable to issues if you modify a file in place without fsyncing. With btrfs you'll end up with either the original file intact or the modified file intact. With ext4 and some journal settings I think you could potentially also end up with a truncated file.

Re:Meh by HaZardman27 · 2012-12-11 04:52 · Score: 0

Try harder, troll.

--
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.

How fractured is ARM? by timeOday · 2012-12-11 04:58 · Score: 2

The ability to boot into different ARM systems using a single kernel is kind of cool, but the need to do it is kind of scary. Is ARM not actually a single instruction set architecture, and if so, what is it?

Re:How fractured is ARM? by Burdell · 2012-12-11 05:14 · Score: 4, Informative

There are variants in the instruction set (just like there are in the x86 world, where i686 is a superset of i383 for example). However, that isn't the big problem with ARM; there isn't a single-standard way of booting like there is with x86 (where most things are IBM PC BIOS compatible, with some now moving to EFI/UEFI). Also, there's no device enumeration like ACPI; lots of ARM vendors build their own kernel with a static compiled-in list of devices, rather than having an easy way to probe the hardware at run-time.
Re:How fractured is ARM? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 05:15 · Score: 2, Informative

It's not the instruction set, it's the differences in boards.
Re:How fractured is ARM? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 06:42 · Score: 0

ARM isn't fractured. It's just a sprained wrist.
Re:How fractured is ARM? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 07:39 · Score: 0

It's not the instruction set, it's the differences in boards.
Ya, I don't get that. I'd ratther have a bunch of board files, than a single SoC file. Seems if you get rid of the multiple board files then you need multiple device tree files. Instead of nice, tightly focused board files just for that board you need a more bloated, generalized kernal to parse a device tree for that board. To me, Linux on ARM means embedded systems and every byte saved is a penny earned. I don't want to bother with parsing a device tree file! Am I missing something?
Re:How fractured is ARM? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 10:13 · Score: 0

A general kernel helps get the system up and running right away. Observe the relative ease of booting Linux on a standard PC, without needing to customize which modules get installed or loaded.
However, Linux is flexible enough to support ignoring a device tree and only compiling in specific modules, if low memory and disk usage is a requirement.

nice... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 05:01 · Score: 0

now lets work on making linux work on a desktop/workstation;-)

Re:nice... by kthreadd · 2012-12-11 05:22 · Score: 1

now lets work on making linux work on a desktop/workstation;-)
Works quite well already on my workstation. Any particular areas of interest where it needs improvement in order to work?
Re:nice... by marcello_dl · 2012-12-11 05:33 · Score: 2

ironically enough the problematic area was games and the linux detractors never brought it up. Let us see what Valve comes up with.

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol

Pffft by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 05:04 · Score: 1, Funny

Windows is up to 8. Obviously, it is more than twice as good.

Re:Pffft by fibonacci8 · 2012-12-11 07:15 · Score: 2

So it's still a regression from 98?

--
Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
Re:Pffft by maxwell+demon · 2012-12-11 08:20 · Score: 2

Not to mention the massive regression from 2000.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Pffft by MonsterTrimble · 2012-12-11 08:55 · Score: 1

That might be the most insightful thing I've read today.

--
I call it 'The Aristocrats'

SMB2: The name sounds so dirty by tepples · 2012-12-11 05:25 · Score: 2

Super Monkey Ball 2.

Integrate *nix with Windows by tepples · 2012-12-11 05:27 · Score: 1

And why should I, as a *nix user, care about what windows supports.

Because you may end up having to integrate the *nix that you use with the Windows that an employer, client, etc. uses.

Re:Integrate *nix with Windows by hobarrera · 2012-12-11 07:14 · Score: 1

Windows supports WebDAV since windows98 IIRC. And I think *nix users tend to avoid windows employers/clients. There's plenty of jobs to get picky about the ones you choose.
Re:Integrate *nix with Windows by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 10:34 · Score: 0

And single sign on for intranets is a killer feature for corporates. One of the things you really still cand do we'll across platforms.

The Kernel Newbies site isn't accessible for me by crivens · 2012-12-11 05:29 · Score: 1

The Kernel Newbies site isn't accessible for me, clearly they're using 3.7. :)

Active directory by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 06:14 · Score: 0

Great. But let me know when it supports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Directory better.

In the meantime...

http://lordandhooks.com/blog/likewise-open-6-and-samba/

Re:Active directory by Lennie · 2012-12-11 12:18 · Score: 1

The kernel doesn not support AD, you should look at Samba 4.

--
New things are always on the horizon

Re:Linux-libre 3.7 released by petermgreen · 2012-12-11 06:28 · Score: 1

For many classes of device the choice comes down to either propietary firmware in a rom on the card or propietary firmware included with the operating system. Do you really belive the former is better for freedom? if so why?

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register

ftape? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 07:19 · Score: 0

Yes, but does it support ftape? That's the burning question in my mind. BRING BACK FTAPE. I USE IT.

Re:Linux-libre 3.7 released by turbidostato · 2012-12-11 07:21 · Score: 1

"Do you really belive the former is better for freedom? if so why?"

Certainly it's better. Because once bought the device is static while the OS is not.

In other words: you don't want not to be able to upgrade to 3.8 just because the vendor dropped support for your otherwise perfectly working device.

Jobs not evenly distributed geographically by tepples · 2012-12-11 07:44 · Score: 1

There's plenty of jobs to get picky about the ones you choose.

Unless you happen to have grown up in an area where there aren't plenty of jobs and need a job to save money so that you can move to where there are plenty of jobs.

Re:Jobs not evenly distributed geographically by spazdor · 2012-12-11 10:29 · Score: 1

You mean people *aren't* like virtual machine instances? You can't just kill one here and bring up another in a different availability zone?

--
DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
Re:Jobs not evenly distributed geographically by Gumbercules!! · 2012-12-11 13:44 · Score: 1

Well, you can but the provisioning time for the new instance is ridiculous.
Re:Jobs not evenly distributed geographically by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 20:44 · Score: 0

You mean people *aren't* like virtual machine instances? You can't just kill one here and bring up another in a different availability zone?
is that you Hitler?
Re:Jobs not evenly distributed geographically by tepples · 2012-12-12 01:37 · Score: 1

Remember before the 1990s when there was no public Internet, long distance telephone calls used to cost a lot of money, and the Postal Service was the cheapest way to move a lot of data around? Human beings are like that, except worse. It costs a lot of money to get someone relocated to another availability zone.

Re:Meh by HaZardman27 · 2012-12-11 07:47 · Score: 1

That wouldn't be trolling, because Slashdot is a largely pro-Linux community. If he went to an MSDN forum and posted that, then he would be trolling. Whoever posted this is trolling because he/she knows that Slashdot is pro-Linux.

--
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.

Support for trim on software raid? by TheSunborn · 2012-12-11 08:13 · Score: 1

Does: "MD: TRIM support for linear (commit), raid 0 (commit), raid 1 (commit), raid 10 (commit), raid5 (commit)"

meen that if I run a software raid-1 on sdd disk, then Linux can do Trim on the disks?

Re:Support for trim on software raid? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 09:25 · Score: 0

Does: "MD: TRIM support for linear (commit), raid 0 (commit), raid 1 (commit), raid 10 (commit), raid5 (commit)"
meen that if I run a software raid-1 on sdd disk, then Linux can do Trim on the disks?
Yes it does. I'm astonished it took this long, but happy that it's here now.
Re:Support for trim on software raid? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 12:18 · Score: 0

I love a nicely trimmed pussy. I'm glad linux finally supports it. That should help move it past the 70s technology.
Re:Support for trim on software raid? by Rich0 · 2012-12-12 00:41 · Score: 1

Yup. Just in time for us all to avoid using md in favor of btrfs it seems. :)

Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 08:25 · Score: 0

typo ruined it...

IPV6 NAT support by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-11 08:53 · Score: 0

great, ipv6 can started to be used

IPV6 NAT'ing support also added by pjr.cc · 2012-12-11 12:40 · Score: 1

IMHO, this is one of the more important features added in 3.7. People will hate me for saying it, but I personally love NAT and was really disappointed when initially the line was "we will never do ipv6 nat in the linux netfilter components".

But, thank god someone came to their senses.

Re:IPV6 NAT'ing support also added by dbIII · 2012-12-11 18:41 · Score: 1

You are right, people will hate you. IPv6 was supposed to get rid of the need to use such a stupid hack as NAT. What are you going to do when skpeIPv6 et al don't work on your network because they don't think anyone would be stupid enough to use NAT on a system that was devised almost entirely so that people wouldn't ever need to use NAT again?
Re:IPV6 NAT'ing support also added by pjr.cc · 2012-12-11 23:00 · Score: 2

NAT is and never was a stupid hack, people make the assumption it stemmed from the exhaustion of ipv4 , but that isnt true... as many people do, you've made the same invalid assumption as everyone else - and thats not meant to be an insult, just a fact of life. The reality is is that we've been working with nat so long that it really doesnt break much any more, and that which it does is work-around-able. Personally I come form the corporate enterprise world and nat is and always will be a reality there (for many reasons)... When you consider the various grades of people that use the internet (home users, geeks, corporates and ISPs, etc), everyone of them has no reason to fear nat, and ipv6 wont change anything about that... IPv6 wasnt designed with any notion around "lets make something that gets rid of nat", not even close. It certainly was intended to make the address space larger, but it wasnt aimed at nat.
The only diff between me (as a network engineer) and many other enterprise grade guys like me is that im dumb enough to say "nat is important, it has a purpose and i do like it" where most aren't dumb enough to say that on slashdot where the various puritan opinions will inevitably turn me into a troll.... which im really not meant to be...
But the fact remains - nat has a purpose, a valid purpose and it will be here forever.
Consider though - just because something is abundant, doesnt mean its necessarily available to you. By that I mean if your ISP decides to only give you one dynamic ipv6 /64 subnet, what then? most home consumers wont notice, but a networking nerd like me? well... there are lots of arguments you could enter into here like "find a new isp" - none of which are worth having. But a brief tour of the nasty things ISP's (not all) have tried to do to make a couple of extra dollar's would probably give a few hints as to why ipv6 nat (and its implementation in linux) is very very important.
You could also go and get a CCIE or JNCIE and start working in the corporate enterprise juganaut world for a decade and i guarantee when get to the end of that you'll change your tune....
Re:IPV6 NAT'ing support also added by dbIII · 2012-12-12 16:23 · Score: 1

It's a bit too early for revisionism since there are plenty of people here that were using TCP/IP before NAT was introduced, and then saw it happen. Also plenty that read the "crab" book before the CCIE certification even existed, so fuck off with your patronising bullshit you silly child.

Re:Linux 3.7 has bugs! by epyT-R · 2012-12-11 13:59 · Score: 2

1. thoroughly wash your bedsheets (or get new ones)
2. throw out your mattress, and any carpeting underneath
3. thoroughly vaccum the frame
4. buy new matress
5. learn personal hygiene.
6. most important: lose the neckbeard

Squid box, small business mail server etc by dbIII · 2012-12-11 14:10 · Score: 1

It wasn't very long ago that one of the machines I was looking after was 300MHz and mostly doing a decent job as a small business mail server and web proxy. Handling large mailboxes (6GB+) in webmail is the thing it couldn't do well and the solution was a system with more memory, but the actual clock speed, even so slow, wasn't really a problem (the replacement that is ten times the speed is not ten times as effective for most tasks).
A 1GHz ARM system with bucketloads of RAM (16GB is cheap these days) would make a pretty decent internal webserver, mailserver and web proxy box that you could stick on a shelf and not care whether the room is airconditioned or not - it could fill the role of something three times the speed with little or no obvious reduction in performance for a lot of applications.

Re:Squid box, small business mail server etc by fnj · 2012-12-11 15:45 · Score: 1

My BeagleBone with 256MB is dandy serving as DNS, DHCP server, cvs server, web and some other stuff.
Re:Squid box, small business mail server etc by dbIII · 2012-12-11 20:24 · Score: 1

Yes, I was just pointing out a nice application for a relatively slow machine with more than 4GB of memory. Of course there is a lot you can do with a lot less.

Not entirely true by Andy+Prough · 2012-12-11 15:32 · Score: 1

SUSE offers up an unsupported work-around: "If read-write access to an ext4 file system is still required, you may install the ext4-writeable KMP (kernel module package). This package is available in the online repository "SLES11-Extras" and contains a kernel module that provides read-write access to an ext4 file system. Be aware, that this kernel module is unsupported." (https://www.suse.com/releasenotes/x86_64/SUSE-SLES/11-SP2/#fate-311111). Clearly, SUSE is going with BTRFS instead of ext4.

Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-14 04:16 · Score: 0

Third base!

151 comments