Slashdot Mirror


Linux 3.10 Officially Released

hypnosec writes with word that "The Linux 3.10 kernel has been officially released on Sunday evening which makes the 3.10-rc7 the last release candidate of the latest kernel which yields the biggest changes in years. Linus Torvalds was thinking of releasing another rc but, went against the idea and went ahead with official Linux 3.10 commit as anticipated last week. Torvalds notes in the announcement that releases since Linux 3.9 haven't been prone to problems and 3.10 is no different."

157 comments

  1. Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll wait for 3.11

    1. Re: Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Linux for Workgroups is the best version

    2. Re:Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I'm really tired of this bullshit, and I'll never use Bing, and I'll make sure to tell all my friends and family not to use this bullshit because I'm so sick of these posts...

    3. Re: Pass by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 1, Funny

      And me without mod points

    4. Re: Pass by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      screw that, the 3.0 (Warp) is the shitz

    5. Re:Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      NSA employee here. I checked the IP address and it was actually posted by someone working at Google. His name is Dave and judging by his browser history, he seems to enjoy gay scat porn. His cell phone location logs shows unusual late night visits to known glory holes. He stays there for 1-3 hours at a time, so I guess we know which side of the wall he sits on. I'd I've already hit my daily quote PRISM quota.

    6. Re:Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      3.14 will be the 'geek' release the mainstream press will notice.

      Note to kernel team: so try not to screw that one up.

    7. Re: Pass by router · · Score: 1

      Fucking floppies for the win!

    8. Re:Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just watch them go 3.13 -> 4.0

    9. Re: Pass by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Linux for Workgroups is the best version

      Does it come with LinSock support out of the box?

    10. Re:Pass by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      It's not that it "crashed", it's just that we expect it to take an arbitrarily long period of time to start running again...

    11. Re: Pass by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And me without mod points

      You without mod points is the best version of you? Don't worry, having mod points is a metastable state anyway.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re: Pass by chthon · · Score: 2

      Trombone LinSock!

    13. Re:Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They could always move up to 3.1415 if they screw up 3.14.

    14. Re: Pass by Bengie · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't copy that floppy! Never mind, it's GPL'd. Copy away.

    15. Re:Pass by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I feel so much safer know that the NSA is working hard to stop terrorist.

    16. Re: Pass by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      I'm still running 2.0.36, you insensitive clod!

    17. Re:Pass by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      After all, there's only one of her.

    18. Re:Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My preacher says he's waiting for 3.16.

    19. Re: Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is quite a challenge. I salute you, sir, for succesfully fucking while floppy.

    20. Re: Pass by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      I really liked a lot about OS/2 Warp... IMHO it's one of the last desktop oriented OSes that would run well on a 50mhz 486 with 8mb of ram (8mb being quite a bit for the time, but still). At some point we really just passed into bloat world. Don't get me wrong, I love having a multi ghz 8-core cpu... but there's something to be said for an OS that could do as much as OS/2 did, as well as it did. Shame that IBM kept it as walled off as it has. Wish that they'd Open-Source what they could from it (Warp 3), would be nice for learning. Next year it is 20 years old, so out of any patent protection at least... of course parts are Copyright (C) Microsoft.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    21. Re:Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You sit there and you thump your Design Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your palms, talk about Gnome 3:16... Linux 3:16 says I just whipped your ass!"

    22. Re: Pass by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      OS/2 is still around and the latest version of 2011 is for sale. Serenity Systems bought the rights to it, now calls it EcomStation 2 and continues development mainly intended as a point of sale system.

      http://www.ecomstation.com/product_info.phtml

    23. Re: Pass by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      AT $150 for the home license, it's really not competitive to Windows or Linux imho. I was aware it was spun off, but didn't know what the sale price for a license was.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    24. Re:Pass by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      I tried the Bing challenge. Google won.

      Two of the searches I tried were "Bing sucks" and "Google sucks". Figured I had to do both to be fair.

    25. Re: Pass by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      not competitive? it's essentially the same price as windows, and in my opinion a superior OS to windows. if one had OS/2 applications or the development tools that can emit OS/2 code (which incidentally I do) it's not unreasonable.

      though I'll be sticking with BSD and Linux myself, thanks.

      people pay $140 for their windows home premium plus more than that for office software...spending $500 on home computer software is not uncommon

    26. Re:Pass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This one goes to 11.

    27. Re: Pass by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      For windows, you have *ALL* the software available that runs on it... one of the reasons it can command the price it does... Linux/BSD are free to download/use with a fair amount of software... Anything else commercial needs to have a serious niche (which OS/2 does for some applications), or be priced below windows or offer more, but that isn't really applicable to a home user at a price that is as much as Windows (more if your computer is pre-loaded with it).

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  2. Did they put the 'Start' button back in? by JoeyRox · · Score: 0

    Oh wait...

    1. Re:Did they put the 'Start' button back in? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      "wondering if anything has been put in there to facilitate government spying" - Didn't you read the article about Atlassian?

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    2. Re: Did they put the 'Start' button back in? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking Vampire!
      Take this garlic.

  3. Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nvidia drivers should be available for the new stable beast by the end of next month. They will get around to it when they are darn good and ready. 3.10-rc1 broke the latest driver. They released a driver about two rc releases ago, but it was still borken. I actually think they released it so that they could say 'see, see, we released a driver just a few weeks ago, so you shouldn't see anything new from us for a while!' It was a fluke that my current hardware build included an nvidia video card (the radeon card I originally bought was borked from the computer store: it wouldn't display video), so I took it back and the only thing they had that was close was an nvidia. They have worked hard to lose me as a customer. I suspect next time they will be successful.

    1. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you even yammering about? The binary drivers?

      Learn to linux, instead of whine. There are always patches to fix the NV binary drivers, which you should be familiar with if you are gung ho enough to actually bother running an upstream kernel.

    2. Re:Nvidia drivers by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree in that I wish Nvidia would go faster, but what will you do? Run Noveau? The fact remains they DO support Linux, and they do it a helluva lot better than AMD/ATI do.. Now, if you don't run 3-D games that tax the hardware you'll probably be fine. I'm not picking on you so much as expressing frustration at the people who complain about Nvidia. No, their support isn't perfect. Yes, they've stumbled. Yes, they pour most of their resources into the Windows driver because Windows, crappy as it is, has 90% of the market. Mod me down, bitch about what I'm saying, whatever. I run Linux myself with an aging GT240 card. I boot into Windows once a month on my main machine for Patch Tuesday. ATI is not a real viable option, and while Intel graphics is fairly well supported, their 'cards' are not really as powerful. Be patient. There'll be a new driver out soon.

    3. Re:Nvidia drivers by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      don't blame nvidia for not supporting the ever-mutable internal API of the Linux kernel. it's your fault for trying to run bleeding edge crap; stick with stable polished mainstream distros and you'll always have an nvidia driver

    4. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The best patch I could find does not do any accelerated video at all. It works, but barely. And the nouveau drivers only display one monitor --its a 9600GT, and its been a bug (across distributions) for at least 4 years. Nouveau isn't telling the nvidia card to start displaying through the second dvi port. One screen is black, and I can drag windows to it, and when I start new apps, they sometimes open there, and then I have to go to the window manager and drag them to a screen I can see. I've sent mmio trace logs to the nouveau folk, but they don't seem interested (they are more interested in changing the clock frequencies of the cards to improve performance, and thermal monitoring so they don't cook the cards when making them run fast).

    5. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computer store? What's that? You mean like the internet?

    6. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but I just can't stand people who still parrot this AMD/ATi doesn't have Linux support bunk. AMD is easily as on top of the game as nVidia if not moreso. Their current and past lineups all work great in Linux, everything from the Radeon HD 5000 series and up (and the 3000-4000 weren't half bad either). Yes, ATi graphics sucked in Linux ten years ago. They don't anymore. If you're going to bash, at least get period correct information.

    7. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. It's impossible to use higher revisions of OpenGL on the open source AMD drivers, and the AMD binary drivers are complete shit.

    8. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Windows, crappy as it is

      So brave.

    9. Re:Nvidia drivers by smash · · Score: 2

      Given that 3.10 is not a release, getting new drivers for 3.10-rcX is better than you can expect with WINDOWS so I'm not sure what your bitch is. When I've upgraded Windows (RELEASE software) I've had driver issues for weeks or months while the vendors catch up. This has happened to me every single OS upgrade in Windows land, save for the jump from Windows 95 to Windows 98.

      Having a cry about Nvidia's shitty Linux support for this is a bit off the mark, IMHO. They don't even put drivers out for rc versions of Windows.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    10. Re:Nvidia drivers by smash · · Score: 1

      err... "Given that 3.10-RCX" is not a release...

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    11. Re:Nvidia drivers by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1, Funny

      So you have a four year old card that can be upgraded with a $50 new card and you are complaining it doesn't work with bleeding edge? I'd suggest you buy a new ATI card and enjoy the wonderful world of restarting X when you resize a window. Have you actually checked if the ATI driver works with 3.10 before you started this rant? I wouldn't be surprised if it wouldn't work either.

      --
      I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    12. Re:Nvidia drivers by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 2, Funny

      But... but... but he had me going for a minute there! He had me convinced ATI had better Linux support than Nvidia! Now you go and ruins it. Thanks a lot.

    13. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you are a fool, you do not know how to use Google, and I suspect you are a troll.

      http://rglinuxtech.com/?p=738

      Captcha: bemoans

    14. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taking to the graphics part of the kernel, the Linux 3.10 will come with interfaces that would addressing of the Unified Video Decoder (UVD), which is a part of Radeon HD graphics cards. Userspace drivers for video accelerator are also planned for the next major Mesa 3D release.

    15. Re:Nvidia drivers by idunham · · Score: 1

      Agreed.
      HD3200 works splendid with Mesa 7.11 or later (GL 3.1 currently), and that's a few years old. Anything new enough before "GCN" (the new architecture that the upper-end HD7000 chips use) has GL 3.1, though GCN is still at 2.1 plus GLSL 1.3 (the version for GL 3.0).
      HD5xxx up through HD8xxx currently have hardware VDPAU via UVD on Mesa.
      HD4xxx and up to GCN have better OpenCL support via clover than any other FOSS driver.
      Power management just got added, and it works.
      Fedora 19 has good enough support to use six monitors with an HD7970, and WebGL works.

      To the parent of the parent, the Naughts called--they want their drivers back.

    16. Re:Nvidia drivers by emblemparade · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm with you in this sentiment generally, though I'm also away of Linus' "fu** you, NVIDIA" moment. Apparently, NVIDIA are annoying collaborators with devs, and not only for video drivers.. so let's not cut them too much slack.

      My pet peeve: people complain constantly that NVIDIA "refuses" to open source their drivers. But these people don't understand that it's not a matter of merely deciding to do so: the NVIDIA drivers contain a whole bunch of 3rd-party code that NVIDIA cannot legally open source. It would require either 1) a lot of legal agreements (and likely lots of royalty and lawyer fees) to make 3rd-party agreements, or 2) rewriting the 3rd-party code from scratch, without referring to the original code. Both of these tasks are monumental and very expensive (for task #2, they would have to hire new programmers that have not been "tainted" by having seen the original code).

      Specs can't be "just" released for similar reasons: like the code, they are encumbered by patents and copyrights.

      NVIDIA have expressed a general will to open source the driver, but it may take years to take it to the next step.

    17. Re:Nvidia drivers by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given that patents has already been sent to the patent office and are public accessable from there; patent are never a reason for not open up specs.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    18. Re:Nvidia drivers by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So what's to stop them opening up those bits that they do own, and then allowing the community to fill in the blanks?
      Considering people are willing to try writing a complete driver from scratch, replacing a few missing bits in an otherwise complete driver isn't much of a stretch.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    19. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that patents has already been sent to the patent office and are public accessable from there; patent are never a reason for not open up specs.

      They are if the company in question is violating someone else's patents and they know it.

    20. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. I have laptops with Intel HD+Nvidia and Intel HD+AMD. The latter I can actually play games on under Linux. The former I cannot without running third party stuff that is neither supported by Nvidia, nor by Ubuntu. I know this is going to change, but as of right now I'm not buying Nvidia laptops.

    21. Re:Nvidia drivers by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      for task #2, they would have to hire new programmers that have not been "tainted" by having seen the original code

      Uhm, why?

      Specs can't be "just" released for similar reasons: like the code, they are encumbered by patents and copyrights

      That makes no sense. Patent encumbrance can't possibly matter for releasability (is that a word?) of specs; patents are public by definition. And copyright is yours if you write the spec yourself.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    22. Re:Nvidia drivers by Sique · · Score: 2

      You don't violate a patent by publishing how it works. And you don't violate a patent by publishing the specs of a patent encumbered device. That's one thing patents are made for: You can publish how it works, and still the original inventor (or the current patent holder) doesn't have to fear his revenue stream dies.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    23. Re:Nvidia drivers by Bengie · · Score: 1

      From what I've read, both AMD and NV have horrible drivers and only Intel IGPs run well, being the only well documented supported open source GPU drivers.

    24. Re:Nvidia drivers by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I thought publishing how the patent works was part of the requirement of getting a patent. How else would they know what your patent is?

    25. Re:Nvidia drivers by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I have the same video card (in my case, the 1GB gigabyte card, whose fan has failed and which I've replaced with cooler master) and the same logical basis for my decisions. Best video card value I've ever bought. It's slow now, but it worked when I bought it even though it wasn't officially supported since it's derived from another card and it's still working today, many moons later.

      The latest AAA games aren't on Linux, so unless you want to use it for GPGPU you just don't need the latest video card. You can save some money instead.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    26. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      though I'm also away of Linus' "fu** you, NVIDIA" moment"

      What the fuck does that even mean?

    27. Re:Nvidia drivers by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the hideous thing about patents is that, even with the published specs, it's illegal to implement them without paying up. So only the patent holder or a direct licensee gets to write a driver for the patented shit. Any roylaties for a patent-encumbered piece of hardware should be included in the price of the hardware - end of story. And that includes your PC - if you paid for an OEM Windows license that covers various patents, that should cover any implementation of those patents on the device. You already paid for it.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    28. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's exactly what ATI did. And as it turned out, this huuuuge roadblock actually wasn't very big at all. It's just an excuse that Nvidia (and formerly ATI) use when explaining why they won't cooperate with customers trying to use their hardware.

    29. Re:Nvidia drivers by nazsco · · Score: 1

      They are dumb. Release the driver as opensource, and depends on the closed 3rd party code, shipped as the current binaryblob.

      Open source devs would waste their time implementing open source version of those components, freeing nvidia ofof paying royalties in the future.

    30. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Horseshit. The API to the linux kernel has been stable for ages, you're thinking of the ABI, which is not stable, because fuck your stupid binary blob bullshit. It's insecure, it's unstable, and permanently supporting it would tie the kernel dev's hands. If you won't play nice with the kernel devs, they're under no obligation to do you any favors.

    31. Re:Nvidia drivers by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 1

      Generally speaking you are correct. If you want a pain-free Linux install stick with Intel. (This also applies to WiFi cards as well.)

    32. Re:Nvidia drivers by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Don't know about that... I was running Ubuntu, and right around Windows 7's public RC, Ubuntu did a release that included a borked intel driver (9.04 iirc)... I couldn't even play YouTube level video anymore, or run Frozen Bubble. Intel was in the middle of a rearchitecting of their Linux driver IIRC, but Ubuntu wouldn't let their release slip, or use an older driver... so 2/3 of the computers out there that happened to be running Intel graphics had a borked UX for anything needing accelerated or 3D rendering support. I know it was more about Ubuntu specifically than Intel, just the same just pointing out that Intel isn't a golden ticket experience necessarily.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    33. Re: Nvidia drivers by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they can't open source the stuff they own because they're not exactly sure what they own?

      Think about a decade of legacy code which may not be completely documented of who each individual author is and what license each line is under. It could be a mess that they'd rather avoid by just helping the open source community write their own code from the ground up.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    34. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I have to say that as much as I suuport AMDs philosophy Ive had nothing but problems with their hardware on Linux In fact Ive had a headache with AMD on Windows too come to that. Nvidia & Intel on the other hand always work flawlessly

    35. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd agree if what you said made any sense. It doesn't. The point of a bleeding edge distro is for nVidia to have the time to update the drivers. Once it's officially released, nVidia has fallen behind.

      And don't even try to give me that "Linux releases too often" nonsense. nVidia is a big company, I'm sure they can find an employee to recompile a kernel and release it as a bleeding edge RC that could cause cancer.

    36. Re:Nvidia drivers by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Wrong. It's impossible to use higher revisions of OpenGL on the open source AMD drivers, and the AMD binary drivers are complete shit.

      I recently tried the open source Radeon drivers and to my surprise they exposed a OpenGL 3.0 core profile.

    37. Re:Nvidia drivers by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I think he means "though I'm also aware of the Linus' "fuck you, NVIDIA" moment".

    38. Re:Nvidia drivers by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      wrong, mature unix kernels have stable interface and backward compatiblity in their internals. it's immaturity of Linux developers that is issue

    39. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux has a stable interface and backwards compatibility in its internals. Do you even know the difference between an API and an ABI?

        Also, namecalling? Classy.

    40. Re:Nvidia drivers by smash · · Score: 1

      And furthermore.... Windows actually has a relatively stable driver ABI...

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    41. Re:Nvidia drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what do you mean "... Windows, crappy as it is, ...". Windows is not crappy .. have you ever used Windows? Windows7 is rock solid and runs all the games solidly .. what are you talking about?

  4. How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributions? by PastTense · · Score: 1

    How long before it shows up in major distributions such as Linux Mint?

  5. Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are one of the greatest and most generous people on Earth. Thank you for all your work!

    1. Re:Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds by turrican · · Score: 5, Funny

      why, he didnt do shit except scream like a tyrant

      Perhaps he's channeling Steve Jobs.

    2. Re:Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      why, he didnt do shit except scream like a tyrant

      A bit of applied tyranny can be just what certain situations need... (And, by historical standards, Torvalds provides tyranny services at extremely reasonable rates)

    3. Re:Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not generious, he is getting paid for this.

    4. Re:Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most great and generous "Doctor" Linus just sent an email to all the kernel developers asking me to keep my "fucking code" out of his kernel and to deposit my "rodent" in a very dark place.

    5. Re:Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

      I had a hangonaminute moment when you referred to him as Dr. Linus Torvalds. But Wikipedia tells us he has honorary doctorates from Helsinki and Stockholm Universities...

    6. Re:Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should've contributed better quality code then.

    7. Re:Thank you, Dr. Linus Torvalds by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      This is correct. The Linux Foundation pays for Linus to develop Linux.

  6. Been running it for over a month already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm always running the latest HEAD of linux-stable.git, I've been runnning 3.10-rc? for over a month now.

  7. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nov 1

  8. Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    GNU Hurd is going to reach stable status very soon! At that point, Linux will be essentially obsolete.

    1. Re:Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming by iggymanz · · Score: 4, Funny

      just in time to run the Perl 6

    2. Re:Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming by c0lo · · Score: 2

      GNU Hurd is going to reach stable status very soon! At that point, Linux will be essentially obsolete.

      HURD? Heck, why? I mean: what's wrong with EMACS OS? You can even tweet from it: try this using only the retarded Linux or HURD kernels!

      (ducks)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming by Drishmung · · Score: 2

      I take it OP is an astrophysicist, and anything quicker than stellar evolution is "very soon".

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    4. Re:Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming by idunham · · Score: 2

      Yea, sure, EMACS is a great OS.

      It just lacks a decent editor. :!duck :x

    5. Re:Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming by serviscope_minor · · Score: 3, Funny

      It just lacks a decent editor

      No it doesn't. Try the following:

      M-x term
      vi

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Linux is obsolete. HURD is coming by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

      Oh dear. here we go again...

  9. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't be a noob. Run linux-stable.git, you get the changes even before they are "released".

  10. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by donaldm · · Score: 4, Informative

    How long before it shows up in major distributions such as Linux Mint?

    Don't know, but Fedora 18 has 3.9.6-200.fc18.x86_64 and that was a week ago. A quick check of the updates indicates that the 3.9.6 kernel is still the latest. As far as getting the 3.10 kernel goes I would say within a week or two, however it really depends on your distribution and how up to date the maintainers like to keep the repositories.

    If you are the repository maintainer for a customer that is using say Redhat Linux (you would be crazy to install a non supported Linux distribution on a production or even development machine) you may have a two to six month delay offset on updates and that is assuming that the customer or company allows 6 monthly updates. In my experience many companies don't like to do any updating once their systems are up and running and it is allot of work on the IT managers side to even get critical patches applied and without the appropriate sign-off's and agreed outages (normally 10 minutes) nothing gets done.

    --
    There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
  11. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question is: "what useful features will they randomly decide to remove or disable, based on the whims of their magic 8-ball of UI design?"

    Getting kinda tired of "upgrading" and having stuff I use regularly be gone. Sometimes after some serious digging I can figure out how to re-enable it, sometimes they've just decided *I* should be doing things their way.

    I am greatful that the many people contribute to FOSS, do. So, thank you all.

    But when you change something, there should always be a way for the end user to make it the way *they* like it.

  12. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    What does kernel development have to do with UI design?

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  13. Mad Catz Street Fighter IV FightPad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From Linus' release note commit summary:

    Shawn Joseph (1):
    Input: xpad - fix for "Mad Catz Street Fighter IV FightPad" controllers

    I'm not a gamer, but this Mad Catz controller seems to be a 3rd party replacement game controller for the Xbox... until now?

    1. Re:Mad Catz Street Fighter IV FightPad by CalcProgrammer1 · · Score: 1

      Makes perfect sense, the xpad driver is for Xbox controllers... The Xbox and Xbox 360 (as well as PS3 and probably next-gen) controllers already interface via USB so they make great PC controllers as well.

  14. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's funny because you pretend like Mint isn't a major distribution. I mean, it's not like it's the 2nd most widely used or anything, right?

  15. I wish they would fix khugepaged by Megor1 · · Score: 1

    Still no fix for khugepaged killing your system :(

    --
    Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
    1. Re:I wish they would fix khugepaged by Megor1 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, someone should invent "echo madvise > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled" and maybe make the default a config option or something... oh, wait.

      Except that crappy workaround doesn't fix it, you have to set it to never as a workaround or simply disable transparent huge pages on boot.

      --
      Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
  16. Ok by The+Cat · · Score: 0, Troll

    4 comes after 3.9

    3.10 comes after 3.00

    Thanks.

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

      Software's been versioned this way for decades. Learn to accept it. 3.10 > 3.9.

    2. Re:Ok by Kidbro · · Score: 3, Informative

      No.

    3. Re:Ok by nashv · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are wrong. You are assuming software version numbers are numeric, following a decimal number system. They are not.

      They are strings, in this case, of the format : '(major_iteration).(minor_iteration)'. Such a pseudo-numeric format is used for several other denotations. A commonly used one is the date. A less common one is chromosomal locations of your genes. To parse such a string, you must know the rules of the format.

      Print this, paste it on your wall. And never whine about software version indicators of any kind ever again.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    4. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      these are not base-10 numbers.

    5. Re:Ok by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      That (totally non-standard) spec you point to has a severe downside: it recommends for pre-releases to have a patch level. That's no only wasteful (it will be always 0), but also makes pre-releases sort AFTER the final:
      3.0.0-rc1 > 3.0.0
      3.0-rc1 < 3.0.0
      (because - < . in ASCII).

      Most projects I know of, including Linux, use 3.0-foobar for versions leading to 3.0.0.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:Ok by Waldeinburg · · Score: 1

      Just don't upgrade to version 3.10, then you can still round up and say, "I'm roughly running version 4".

    7. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're damn right, computers have their own separate conventions and aren't always decimal everywhere. This is why a megabyte is 1024 bytes, goddammit, and only pinheads use that "mebibyte" gobbledygook!

    8. Re:Ok by The+Cat · · Score: 1

      I've been writing software since Gerald Ford was president, son.

      3.9 > 3.10

      Take your pseudo-numeric format and park it.

    9. Re:Ok by The+Cat · · Score: 1

      Someone pulls idea out of their ass, makes website about it, then claims everyone else is wrong. Film at 11.

    10. Re:Ok by petteyg359 · · Score: 2

      If you're doing version comparison based on ASCII codes, you might as well give up now, because you have a terminal case of stupid.

    11. Re:Ok by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      So I'm supposed to have a magical sorter that hires an oracle for every pair of version numbers, right?

      There's a common scheme of comparing them that almost everyone agrees with: sort lexically, taking a string of digits as single symbol: 3.9.2 compares as less than 3.10.1, 3.10a as less than 3.10b. That "semver" proposal doesn't work with that.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    12. Re:Ok by Kidbro · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. And yes, I agree that semver is in no way standard. In fact, I was mainly lazy and picked the first semi thorough reference I could find on the classical versioning number scheme, though to be honest I'd rather just distill it to:

      A version number is a tuple of integers of decreasing significance separatade by a dot. Whenever one of the integers is incremented by one, the subsequent ones are reset to 0 or removed.

      Other shenanigans (such as -rcX) varies between projects, and is usually easy enough to figure out from context.

    13. Re:Ok by petteyg359 · · Score: 1

      Simple string sort says 3.10a > 3.10. "a" and "b" can work like version numbers as in OpenSSL, but they don't work as designations for "alpha" and "beta" unless you're already finagling your sorting algorithm, in which case checking for semver's "1.0.0-alpha" or "1.0.0+a1b2c3" and placing them behind "1.0.0" is hardly more effort. If you're really concerned about making the string sort slightly simpler, then why not put in a change request to make the patch version optional on pre-release versions? There's a nice "open an issue on GitHub" link near the bottom of the front page.

    14. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Because clearly page 3 line 9 comes after page 3 line 10.

    15. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you put un-sortable dates in filenames too.

      my-13-7-98-donkey-scat.jpg

    16. Re:Ok by nashv · · Score: 1

      If you haven't picked up that software versions are not decimal numbers in 2013 , you should have stopped writing software since Gerald Ford's term was over.

      --
      Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.
    17. Re:Ok by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are horribly wrong, and one has to guess where the hell you learned that decimal notation was for versioning....what a troll, or complete idiotic. Not sure which.

  17. It's much better, but I still have serious bugs by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 2

    I have a 7850 and I get frequent X restarts with the latest binary driver after trying to resize a window that has something accelerated in it happening. Also, (not their fault) I can't use oclhashcat with the latest driver. It seems they have quite a few rough edges left to polish out still.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:It's much better, but I still have serious bugs by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2

      I find all of these whines about nVidia somewhat amusing, in that they have been the most prominent of technology manufacturers who have taken the trouble to support Linux for many years. OK, the laptop I'm using right now has an Intel GPU, but I've lost count of the number of perfectly good nVidia cards I've had to replace, only for the simple reason that motherboard replacements don't have slots that fit them. I have never yet had one break.

      Ask anyone who has struggled with marginally-supported graphics cards (Anyone remember SiS?) in the earlier days of Linux, and you will find many (myself included) who breathed a sigh of relief when nVidia came along with proper cards with drivers that actually worked.

  18. so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should be sure that release is "cherry" then?

  19. Re:My recent experience with Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    only over a decade late on that post!

  20. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by macemoneta · · Score: 1

    Fedora makes available new kernels within a few days, for those that want to play with the latest and greatest. The 3.10 kernel should be available within the next 24 hours using the Fedora rawhide kernel nodebug repository.

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

  21. Re:My recent experience with Linux by dbIII · · Score: 1

    Get a new bit of stuff to cut and paste to earn your money you very lazy shill - Win2k and VB are from a decade ago.

  22. Re:My recent experience with Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a rather elaborate joke of some sort.

  23. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    (you would be crazy to install a non supported Linux distribution on a ... development machine)

    No, I strongly disagree.

    You should be able to smash up your development machine with a hammer now, and be back up and running in a few hours. I've run all sorts of stuff as development machines, including distros far out of support for various reasons, and others like Arch which are totally bleeding edge.

    Also, hardware aside, I've never screwed up a developement machine so badly that I couldn't put off fiing it until a convenient time. That includes accidently killing an ubuntu upgrade part way through.

    Workstations can and should be very quick to replace and also not too heavily tied to a single install. It helps that everything I develop comes with configure scripts now. Makes it much easier for me to rebuild a working machine and makes it nice and easy for my customers to deploy on a fixed system or noew hardware.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  24. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by LoadedSum · · Score: 1

    I'm not 100% certain what you're implying by "non-supported Linux distribution" but if you're referring to that little bullet point on your Dell PowerEdge spec sheet claiming to support "Red Hat" as being some sort of gospel and installing Debian (for example) is "crazy" I must conclude you've been drinking the marketing kool-aid.

  25. Ever-mutable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, Ye Olde "stable ABI" red herring all over again.

    Mmhh. Herrings. Especially red herrings.

    1. Re:Ever-mutable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the major difference between the kernels is on is distrubted under the GPL, and the other is not. That is a lot more major than the ABI. It encourages the drivers to open up, and punishes them when they don't. I kind of like that.

    2. Re:Ever-mutable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you can run drivers for XP on Windows 7

      Correction: You can run a select few drivers from Windows XP on Windows 7. Most drivers will not function, even in 32 bit mode, which is why most drivers you download have a separate xp/2k folder. Microsoft pulls this crap all the time.

      Windows 3.11 drivers worked in 95, but they changed the framework in 98, then again for 2000, then again in Vista. I'm quite surprised they didn't do it again in 8, because it's been a constant "Every other release" change. Your whole "Windows uses a consistent ABI" thing is a myth, plain and simple, but that doesn't matter because you're apparently a robot who will repeat this in the next thread that pops up too.

  26. Re:My recent experience with Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is from http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=831936

  27. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is all just retarded confusion. That is the whole problem with bothering with kernel version or mentioning that you use GNU userspace for a distribution.
    It matters way more to the end user what version of Gnome/KDE/Unity/Android/Whatever is used.

  28. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, "supported" in this case means that you pay someone to support you. If the machine stops working you have your ass covered in the sense that you can pass the blame onto the supporting company and instead of getting fired there can be a company wide decision to change to a different vendor.
    Or you call them for support, they fix the problem for you, you write a small report that says that the problem would have been much worse with another vendor and that the current solution is great because you have statistically less downtime than competitors or whatever BS is required.

  29. NVidia gave up that bullshit years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They can't OSS because of maybe NDAs!!!" bullshit.

    NVidia tried that but made the mistake of putting some verifiable information about what they were talking about years ago, fingering SGI for their inability to GPL their stuff. Not saying *what* information was involved, just that it was "SGI's fault".

    SGI were asked by the FOSS community and many users if they could license whatever it was for FOSSing. SGI said openly "We are not aware of anything that NVidia have from us that we could not accept being put under GPL".

    NVidia never tried that lie again, but fanbois a decade later are STILL crapping that shit out.

    If NVidia have a "whole bung of 3rd-pary code that NVIDIA cannot legally open source", then what is it?

    Or do you not know? In which case why do you pretend that this is a solid-cold fact?

  30. Haven't been prone to problems? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    The 3.9 releases haven't been prone to problems? Half of the 3.9 RCs panic'd my Phenom II X6 1045T system.

    I call shenanigans.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:Haven't been prone to problems? by I+AOk · · Score: 1

      A 3.9 RC is not a release version...

      --
      [iconv --from-code=utf-7]
  31. Kernel Newbies? by MMC+Monster · · Score: 4, Informative

    Do we not like Kernel Newbies anymore? I've always looked to them for a synopsis of kernel features: http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.10

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    1. Re:Kernel Newbies? by anandrkris · · Score: 1

      Do we not like Kernel Newbies anymore? I've always looked to them for a synopsis of kernel features: http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.10

      Even Linus's release mail suggest that "As usual, I'm sure H-Online and kernelnewbies will do better writeups of the details.." :-) http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1306.3/04336.html

  32. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by BrokenHalo · · Score: 1

    That includes accidently killing an ubuntu upgrade part way through.

    You've done that? Far out.

    I've never been able to stick with Ubuntu for more than an hour, much less upgrade it... :)

  33. ftape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what happened to ftape?

  34. But why aren't people using it? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    So here's a question: why aren't SBC manufacturers keeping up with kernel versions? Shipping product is often stuck somewhere in the middle of the 2.6 series.

    1. Re:But why aren't people using it? by amannm · · Score: 1

      Why would you ask SBC manufacturers? They are mostly dependent on the firms that design the involved ICs and their associated drivers, documentation, toolkits, etc.

  35. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    You've done that? Far out.

    It's kinda fixed, with judicious use of cargo-cult apt and dpkg incantations.

    I've never been able to stick with Ubuntu for more than an hour, much less upgrade it... :)

    Well it helps if you install FVWM and a few other nice tools :)

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  36. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting kinda tired of "upgrading" and having stuff I use regularly be gone.

    So stop using Windows and switch to Linux, because I have yet to see an upgrade of any distro I've used that didn't make it run faster and have more features.

  37. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by HiThere · · Score: 1

    You clearly aren't an Ubuntu user. Neither am I anymore. (I went back to Debian.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  38. Re:How Long Before Showing up in Major Distributio by HiThere · · Score: 1

    You were rather vague about just what you were complaining about, but from context I presume it to be GUI. Probably Gnome3. If so I certainly agree, but it doesn't have much to do with the kernel.

    OTOH, there was a time when the scheduler varied a lot between releases. That seems to have stabilized, though, over a year ago. Otherwise, I can't guess what you are talking about.

    (FWIW, there was a C library change a few years ago that broke some games I have installed. So I run them on a virtual machine. It's annoying, but what can you expect of proprietary software. ... It's not like Loki is around anymore for me to complain to.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.