Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux 4.0 Kernel Released

Posted by samzenpus on from the brand-new dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Linux 4.0 kernel has been released. Linux 4.0 brings many features including live patching, Radeon DisplayPort Audio, RadeonSI fan control improvements, new OverlayFS functionality, Intel Quark SoC support, and a heck of a lot more. Linus's release announcement reads in part: "So I decided to release 4.0 as per the normal schedule, because there really weren't any known issues, and while I'll be traveling during the end of the upcoming week due to a college visit, I'm hoping that won't affect the merge window very much. We'll see. Linux 4.0 was a pretty small release both in linux-next and in final size, although obviously 'small' is all relative. It's still over 10k non-merge commits. But we've definitely had bigger releases (and judging by linux-next v4.1 is going to be one of the bigger ones)."

172 comments

  1. Moving too fast - boycott the Linux Kernel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Four major versions in 25 years, who does Linus think he is? He's drunk with power!

  2. Does it run my apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Nope? Sigh. Do not want. I know it's free, but that's only because nobody would pay anything for it. Come on Windows 10... hurry up already.

    1. Re:Does it run my apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Nope? Sigh. Do not want. I know it's free, but that's only because nobody would pay anything for it. Come on Windows 10... hurry up already.

      This guy gets it!

    2. Re:Does it run my apps? by felipou · · Score: 0

      It runs my apps, and I'm glad I don't need to use Windows for that. :)

    3. Re:Does it run my apps? by Lumpy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Which is fine because windows doesn't run my apps either.

      So glad I get the best of both worlds with OSX.

      I'd go full time linux if linux would get some real video editing software. Everything available for linux video editing is a joke half finished toy early alpha/beta that barely works.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re: Does it run my apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Silly AC... You should know better than to speak the truth around here!

    5. Re:Does it run my apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Nope. Linux runs *real* programs, not worthless 16-color crapps like Windows 8.

    6. Re:Does it run my apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Everything available for linux is a joke half finished toy early alpha/beta that barely works.

      FTFY

    7. Re:Does it run my apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know you're a troll but say that next time you do anything with your bank card!

    8. Re:Does it run my apps? by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      You'll generally just have to rebuild your app.

      If you picked some technology which is windows-specific to design it, then it's probably your fault that Linux won't run it, not the kernel's.

      Oh, and we've got wine, in any case, which seems to run a great many things just fine.

    9. Re:Does it run my apps? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I do a lot with my bank card. and not trolling Linux does not have anything usable for video editing.

      This is a 100% solid fact, No Adobe Premiere, no Sony Vegas, no Final Cut Pro, no AVID...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    10. Re:Does it run my apps? by ikhider · · Score: 2

      Yeah, what can be done about this? The current GNU/Linux alternatives still have a catch up time of at least a decade in this field. Pixel editing is okay, vector editing is one of the success stories as well as digital photo development. But video is way off...If only one of these major companies can get a port to work on GNU/Linux...unless we can crowdfund openshot or some similar ilk to close the gap...

      --
      "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
    11. Re:Does it run my apps? by Blaskowicz · · Score: 0

      Linux runs horrible crap in Xaw, xlib, lesstif etc.

    12. Re:Does it run my apps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try IFX Piranha, Blackmagic DaVinci Resolve, or Lightworks. They're all in use at professional post houses, home videos not so much. Blender is also in wide use at FX houses and it can cut video too, but the first three are used to cut commercials, industrials, and features every day.

  3. Arbitrary major version jumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Sorta sad that Linux joined the trend of versioning insanity

    1. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Me too, I'd so prefer release numbers like Chrome.

      Introducing Linux 3652!

    2. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer "Linux EZ"

    3. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I prefer "Linux XP"

      FTFY.

    4. Re: Arbitrary major version jumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Linux 365? Automatically updates every year, assuming you pay a small (extortion) fee to the Linux Foundation.

    5. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wooooooooooooooooooosh

      O
      -|- <-- you
      / \

    6. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Our sales department decided in our contracts a (totally arbitrary) policy to "support" only the last 3 major versions of our products. This means we periodically update the major version just so we can stop supporting the older versions even if there are not any major new features.

    7. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by ruir · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Whoosh to you down the drain and fuck you too kid.

    8. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      I know that sounds like cynical marketroidism, but sometimes you do need to do that to wean people off some hideously ancient version they're still running on an old 386 under Netware 3.1 bricked into a wall next to the second floor men's toilet. "Last 3 major versions" sounds like a pretty generous strategy, we do "last n minor versions", where n is usually spread over 2-3 years. In other words unless you have a long-term support contract, if you come to us with a problem in a product written in the heyday of Windows XP, you're told to upgrade.

    9. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may sound funny to you guys, but i had just that experience, many years ago i was part of a team integrating a recent aquisition into a larger company. On the first day in (it was a newspaper) we could not find the servers, and the company which had outsourced IT could not contact thier "guy", so nobody knew where they where located. We had to spend 3 days following the cables back from the workstations, through trunks, and partition walls, up and down trunking attached to the outside of the building. It was the old daisy chain 10base2 ethernet.

      Eventualy we found two servers standing next to each other, underneath a pile of cardboard boxes and rolls of toilet paper, in the building supervisors storage cupboard, both running netware 2.15 ( it was early nineeties). Both with an uptime of more than two years. Never been backed up, never been mainatained. When they ran out of space, the journalists just deleted a bunch of files and carried on working.

    10. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by turbidostato · · Score: 0

      "know that sounds like cynical marketroidism, but sometimes you do need to do that to wean people off some hideously ancient version they're still running on an old 386 under Netware 3.1 bricked into a wall next to the second floor men's toilet."

      Why do you think those people are running "some hideously ancient version they're still running on an old 386 under Netware 3.1 bricked into a wall next to the second floor men's toilet"? Do you think it's in order to upset your tech department or it might be because it does what it needs to do so if it's not broken why should I need to fix it?

      To add insult to injury, remember you would have no problem supporting ancient versions of your software if there were no bugs to fix on it so what you really are doing is failing to provide the customer with a product that just works as it should without broken parts.

      And you think it only "sounds" like cynical marketroidism? It *is* cynical marketroidism.

    11. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Parent poster here, I tried to convince the my manager and sales department to give support on a time basis based (X years after delivery date), but the "that is not how other companies bigger than ours do it" argument won over mine. So as a result we update our versions based around the time we think we supported the old versions long enough.

    12. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "That may sound funny to you guys [...] Eventualy we found two servers standing next to each other, underneath a pile of cardboard boxes and rolls of toilet paper, in the building supervisors storage cupboard, both running netware 2.15 ( it was early nineeties). Both with an uptime of more than two years."

      Forgetting the issue about no backups, I don't find it funny but sad: it just shows the utterly lame situation of IT the fact that something like this comes to a surprise instead of being the norm.

    13. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Parent poster here, I tried to convince the my manager and sales department to give support on a time basis based (X years after delivery date), but the "that is not how other companies bigger than ours do it" argument won over mine. So as a result we update our versions based around the time we think we supported the old versions long enough.

      I think a combination works best, major releases makes most sense when it comes to technology/code you must support while a minimum number of years makes sure you won't go Firefox and suddenly be at version 40. For all the other bashing Microsoft can take, their policy is actually a good model:

      Mainstream Support for Business, Developer, and Desktop Operating Systems will be provided for 5 years or for 2 years after the successor product (N+1) is released, whichever is longer. Microsoft will also provide Extended Support for the 5 years following Mainstream support or for 2 years after the second successor product (N+2) is released, whichever is longer.

      Basically you get a guaranteed 10 years of support from release, 7 years as long as you're buying the latest version (minimum 2+5) and if it takes longer the support period stretches too. Don't expect another XP though, Vista runs from January 2007 to April 2017, Win7 from October 2009 to January 2020 both 10 years, 3 months. And with Win10 seemingly on schedule for release this year it'll be the same with Win8.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why do you think those people are running "some hideously ancient version they're still running on an old 386 under Netware 3.1 bricked into a wall next to the second floor men's toilet"? Do you think it's in order to upset your tech department or it might be because it does what it needs to do so if it's not broken why should I need to fix it?

      To add insult to injury, remember you would have no problem supporting ancient versions of your software if there were no bugs to fix on it so what you really are doing is failing to provide the customer with a product that just works as it should without broken parts.

      The way the world actually is, the acceptable market standard for software is not "perfection", and beyond a certain date back-porting fixes is just unrealistic. Sometimes the fix IS to move onto a newer version. You can't easily get comparable PC's and software of that age for developers to test on, and expecting every developer you hire to not just learn about the current system version, but also about the detail of decades of development history before they can get working is implausible. Asking a recent grad to learn about Netware system calls that were obsolete a decade ago is silly.

      More specifically, if a system is important to a business, it should not contain a single-point-of-failure based on irreplaceable tech anyway. It's an immediate business continuity audit failure in any regulated industry.

    15. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by iced_773 · · Score: 1

      Look up Rice's Theorem. Or work on a major software project. It goes way beyond unfair to expect a complex software system to "just work as it should" - it's mathematically impossible to make sure it does.

      Beyond that, supporting every single ancient version just because one guy somewhere might be using it would take man-hours away from supporting the versions most people use. It sucks for that one guy, but it'd suck for everyone else if a gaping security hole in a more common version were to stay unpatched for too long.

      Furthermore, the older a version of a program gets, the more of its devs switch jobs, retire, etc. You can bring on new devs and make them learn the old code base (current job market notwithstanding), but once again, that takes man-hours, especially if the old code base was written before everyone started thinking about maintainability. You could instead put them to work adding a feature to the next version that a larger segment of the market has been wanting. And you need to keep releasing software - the competitors are, and the devs' salaries don't appear out of thin air.

    16. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

    17. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet, with cars this is possible.

    18. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Uh what, you're kidding right?

      I mean, 3652 is SO yesterday. We're on version 4023 this microsecond! 4077 I mean... damn it, it changes faster than I can type.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    19. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Yes, you should look up Rice's Theorem.

      With cars, it's posible. With complex software it isn't. There's a reason for that.

      --
      Rethinking email
    20. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by TheRecklessWanderer · · Score: 1

      Do you work for Sage?

      --
      Mean what you say...say what you mean.
    21. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Look up Rice's Theorem. Or work on a major software project. It goes way beyond unfair to expect a complex software system to "just work as it should" - it's mathematically impossible to make sure it does."

      No problem with that. So the software doesn't work as it should when shipped? Ok. But that's not the point: I was not talking about the software not being ready when shipped but the vendor's negative to correct it. Is it ten years down the road when I step into a broken part of the product? so what?

      "supporting every single ancient version just because one guy somewhere might be using it would take man-hours away"

      No, no, and one thousand times no. It is not taking away hours from anywhere since your software is broken. The fact that you delivered broken software works in fact the other way around: you were allowed to take hours away to your delivery date and you are allowed to only recover them afterwards as people stump in the bugs and the need arises.

      "Furthermore, the older a version of a program gets, the more of its devs switch jobs, retire, etc."

      I see... so, again, what? Taking your own words, look up Rice's Theorem: you knew all that the very day you shipped the product and still you didn't plan for it? It is the vendor's problem, don't try to make it into a customer's one.

      You see... the software business is in pathetic shape, we accept quality levels that would ashame any other industry and still we racionalice the statu quo to make it more palatable instead of taking professional pride into making it better.

    22. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "With cars, it's posible. With complex software it isn't. There's a reason for that."

      No, with cars isn't possible either. Every major brand has recalls and maintenance programs for that very reason. The difference is that respectable brands will launch a maintenance program for a detected flaw even if it is ten years down the road and customers will enrage and go for a class action if they don't.

      And cars, being physical objects will have wearing parts and, again, people won't accept a "buy a newer model" answer from the vendor ten, fifteen or even more years later when going for a replacement.

    23. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by iced_773 · · Score: 1

      Since you clearly didn't look up Rice's Theorem, here it is:

      Any non-trivial property of a Turing machine is undecidable.

      In other words, there is no methodical way to guarantee anything interesting about a piece of software, and that includes whether it works properly under every input. You can verify that it works with "typical" inputs, but there will always be some set of boundary conditions that you couldn't possibly have known to check on day one.

    24. Re:Arbitrary major version jumps by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "In other words, there is no methodical way to guarantee anything interesting about a piece of software, and that includes whether it works properly under every input. You can verify that it works with "typical" inputs, but there will always be some set of boundary conditions that you couldn't possibly have known to check on day one."

      You can put it any way you want, since I already accepted that and asked "so what?"

      You are arguing that you can't deliver flawless software by day zero (which I alredy accepted) as an excuse to not correct the flaws once they appear (which is what I make a point of).

      You are, again, rationalizing.

  4. Problematic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now with 8% less toxic masculinity!

  5. Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Is the Linux kernel as secure as the OpenBSD kernel yet?

    1. Re:Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Over 20 billion Linux kernels in use on a daily basis. How many exploits have your heard about, troll?

    2. Re:Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    3. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Shellshock was just the start. If Linux ever gained marketshare it would be exploited left and right. And it will be even easier to find exploits because hackers can see the source. But right now your security by obscurity is working, sorta.

    4. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You do understand that Shellshock was not a Linux vulnerability, right?

    5. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know the difference between bash and the linux kernel ? Troll !

    6. Re:Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's the list, though a few are mis-filed (the arbitrary code execution from this year is actually in Flash, no idea why it appears here), but most of the privilege elevation ones from this year and most of the arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities are real (though several seem to be in Logitech HID drivers).

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one uses the kernel alone. In practice Bash is part of most Linux installations.

    8. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And yet, even if bash is part of most Linux installation, the weakness is not across the board. For instance, the default shell (that is used by CGI scripts) is often binded to dash instead of bash.

      Having bash as the default user shell does not have anything to do with shellshock.

    9. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ehm...

      Linux runs most devices of the computer world.

      - Android phones
      - Jolla phones
      - Android tablets
      - Servers
      - Routers
      - Media boxes
      - Chromebooks

      Oh, you're talking about Windows desktop PC's, eh? Such a dying minority :-)

    10. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux kernel exploits have become too valuable to manage the vulnerabilities with full disclosure, or even standard vulnerability disclosure sans PoC.

    11. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not seeing exploitable kernel bugs publicly disclosed is not a reason to believe they don't exist, and in horrifying numbers.

    12. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by LordLimecat · · Score: -1, Flamebait

      You do realize IE, GDI+, and command interpreter vulnerabilities are not Windows vulnerabilities, right?

      Oh, whats that, a double standard is used?

    13. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if the "security by obscurity" excuse were correct, then most of the Web (since it runs Linux) would be hacked right now due to those exploitable bugs.

    14. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do realize, bash is in cygwin, so by your standard shellshock is also a Windows vuln, right?

    15. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not really a double standard - those are from the same company targeting the same platform. It would be like grouping CVEs from bash, findutils, tar and time.

    16. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hasn't MS argued in court that IE cannot be separated from Windows?

    17. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And maybe it is. It's very possible for a system to be compromised, without it being obvious that it has been compromised.

    18. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1
      The question was about kernels (read the subject line). Bash is heavily used in the Linux world, but it's not part of the kernel. You do not need to use the Linux kernel to use bash, and you do not need to use bash to use the Linux kernel.

      Bash is older than Linux and has been available for just about every version of **IX for a couple of decades, and even Windows (via cygwin).

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    19. Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel? by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1

      Actually, Linux does have marketshare. It's got huge marketshare of the server market, and servers can be high-value targets for a large variety of reasons. There are people who want to target Linux. They've just had a much harder time doing so than they have with MS-Windows.

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  6. 2.6.32 anyone? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 0

    I suppose I should start looking to upgrade my old Centos 6.6 box. I'm running a 2.6.32 kernel on that. I've thought about upgrading to the new Centos 7,0 but I'm not sure I want to fuck with it. The current system I have works perfectly and does exactly what I need it to do.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    1. Re:2.6.32 anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always try to do a virtual machine run first to see if I can find any potential issues. Next step after that is a disk image with Clonezilla and to try it in the flesh.

      Though I guess the longer you use a version, the harder it gets to start over when you have a ton of modifications behind the cover.

      Then again, you could still try compiling the new kernel and trying it out, no distro upgrade/install necessary. You're always left with the new and old kernel on the system. If you don't want to go through thousands of questions to get your .config file up to date I'm sure there will be a .yum version of the 4.0 kernel available soon for your distro.

    2. Re:2.6.32 anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK.

    3. Re: 2.6.32 anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Install debian and never have to reinstall again.

    4. Re:2.6.32 anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the longer you wait to upgrade, the more stuff tends to break during the process. You may be past the point of no return.

      If it ain't broke...

    5. Re:2.6.32 anyone? by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

      Usually I just copy my home folder and reinstall my programs. If you don't install much stuff outside your package manager the harder part is remembering what to install.

    6. Re:2.6.32 anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suppose I should start looking to upgrade my old Centos 6.6 box. I'm running a 2.6.32 kernel on that. I've thought about upgrading to the new Centos 7,0 but I'm not sure I want to fuck with it. The current system I have works perfectly and does exactly what I need it to do.

      Well Centos 7 will cure that. It's based on systemd.

    7. Re:2.6.32 anyone? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the longer you wait to upgrade, the more stuff tends to break during the process. You may be past the point of no return.

      I'm already starting to see that. Most of the stuff I use runs fine. Mysql, plexserver, samba and a few other apps. I'm already seeing stuff that will not compile for it. XBMC will not compile on Centos6, and nether will the latest version of HandBrake.

      XBMC is not really an issue, but Handbrake I use all the time to encode stuff for the plex server.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    8. Re:2.6.32 anyone? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Someone seriously, went to the effort to mod this down? Was it because I suggested that I might go to a dist with systemd on it? Really, don't you have better things to do than worry about what is running on my bitch box?

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    9. Re:2.6.32 anyone? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The current system I have works perfectly and does exactly what I need it to do.

      Then I recommend not upgrading. The only reason to upgrade so if you run out of security updates or if you need newer features from a newer version.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    10. Re: 2.6.32 anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he just wanted to preemptively discourage the subsequent bitching and moaning we'll hear from you once you do experience the problems of systemd first-hand?

    11. Re:2.6.32 anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least on Debian Jessie, the systemd screws up NFS mounts with Linux 4.0. If I boot with previous release (3.19?), the NFS mounts described in /etc/fstab are handled properly on boot and the whole system boots up in few seconds. But if I boot the same laptop with Linux 4.0, the systemd's boot process blocks for 1min 35s each and every time when it tries to contact the NFS server via WIFI.

    12. Re:2.6.32 anyone? by oobayly · · Score: 1

      Handbrake? Your distro comes with a wife?

    13. Re:2.6.32 anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So lets see if we get this right. With one version of the kernel it works, and with another version it doesn't, but somehow even though the same systemd is in use in both cases, it is systemd's fault? Interesting troubleshooting logic you've applied there. Clearly your thought process was: Systemd is in use and things aren't working the way I expect. Ah HA! Proof that systemd is evil!

    14. Re:2.6.32 anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Handbrake? Your distro comes with a wife?

      Cough-cough. More than one.....

    15. Re: 2.6.32 anyone? by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 1

      Maybe he just wanted to preemptively discourage the subsequent bitching and moaning we'll hear from you once you do experience the problems of systemd first-hand?

      Why would I bitch about something I have been using for 2 years? I'm very familiar with systemd, and doubt I would bitch about it.

      --

      Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

    16. Re: 2.6.32 anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      doubt I would bitch about it

      They don't call you "Lord Apathy" for nothing.

  7. Coincidence? by ckatko · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's kind of funny that Microsoft has also decided to move their Kernel from version 6.1.62.6.2.7.21.1.6.2.2.000.02.432.523.253.532 to 10.0 in Windows 10.

    I wonder if some useless managers got wind of Linux changing theirs, and made their developers change the number.

    "Dear busy senior developers: I just found out Linux made a bigger number. Why can't we? Why are you wasting our time fixing bugs? Add this feature I just heard about today! It's very important.

    Sincerely,
    --Scott Miller"

    1. Re:Coincidence? by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      Why couldn't they have done this when those Downfall parodies were all the range, this one could have been awesome. Hitler, Developers, Developers, Developers, Linux is a Cancer, the Secret Flying Chairs of the Luftwaffe. It practically writes itself...

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:Coincidence? by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      IIRC MS always wanted versions of windows to incitement the major release every time they released a new OS. Turns out they couldn't because too many software developers screwed up detecting the version of windows the OS was and it software wouldn't run on newer versions.

    3. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still think they should've called it Linux 11, just to one-up Windows.

      4.0 is sooo Windows95.

    4. Re:Coincidence? by ckatko · · Score: 1

      I still think people would watch the crap out of that video if you want to make it.

    5. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, internally (as in, from GetVersionEx()), Windows 10 is version still 6.4.

    6. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, they should definitely make it go to 11.

    7. Re:Coincidence? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      It returns '6.2' in Windows 8.1 and 10 Technical Preview. Also, fyi, GetVersionEx() is deprecated.

  8. version 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought he said he would never release version 3 lol. Can't even trust the creator.

    1. Re:version 4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trololololol !

  9. fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's point! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am just a Greek living in the past, but when both Apple and Windows are in "10" already, and even the original (released 2 decades ago) BSD in 4.4 is ahead (yes, even the confirmed dead BSD*!)... with linux still in 4, what is the point**?

    * yesterday, we Greeks celebrated the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Christos Anesti!
    ** recognizing fake "Macedonian" Slavs as real - the dying craft of point release(s)...

  10. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by ruir · · Score: 0

    They may be in "10", the sweet irony is that Linux is more stable than both.

  11. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    *IF* you don't change it.... or dare to dream by suspending it and expecting it to come alive again exactly the way it was before. Double headed may or may not work. Yeah, other then that it is stable.

    Oh and you need linux support for all the hardware in your machine. And have the fortune that all new (within the last 10 years) features of your device are supported in the available linux driver. Not to mention whether it will support dual graphics cards.

    And before you go on saying 'x' distro does it, or 'y' distro does it.. we don't always have the choice of all distros due to dependencies or legal reasons.

    Linux is good, maybe even great, but it is not without its headaches. Personally I find Windows to be the most headache free OS. OS/X loses out in my mind because they have sacrificed a lot to make the UI basic and simple, and that is a matter of personal preference.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  12. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They may be in "10", the sweet irony is that Linux is more stable than both.

    Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh.

  13. Graphics Card Fan Control in the Kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't that be in a separate driver?

    1. Re:Graphics Card Fan Control in the Kernel? by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't that be in a separate driver?

      Yes.... But isn't that what a "kernel module" is? Isn't it just a separate file that contains the functions you need to access the hardware? (or in the case of Linux, the source that you can choose to link directly into the Kernel that does the same thing?)

      HINT: That's exactly what it is.

      As I understand this, Kernel 4.0 allows some new features to be use by the drivers and some module authors are choosing only to support the 4.x branch of the kernel for their hardware and not have to maintain two code bases. Sort of like how windows broke up their kernel versions and how old drivers don't work with new kernels and new drivers don't usually work with old kernels.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  14. What about RdRand issue? by sinij · · Score: 1

    Are they planning to adjust how RdRand is used in random.c ?

    1. Re:What about RdRand issue? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      No, it's not an issue.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

      RdRand could be 100% predictable and it wouldn't cause a problem.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:What about RdRand issue? by sinij · · Score: 1

      RdRand could be non-random without negative impact, but what if it is maliciously non-random? For example, manipulating RdRand to consistently pump duplicate of the output buffer will result in a very compromised seeding (0x0000..).

    3. Re:What about RdRand issue? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It hasn't been observed to do that...if RdRand was found to ever produce meaningful quantities of low-randomness output, then it should be eliminated as an entropy source.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:What about RdRand issue? by sinij · · Score: 1

      I don't think you are fully considering the possibility of maliciousness. RdRand, because of on-chip whitening is completely opaque, there is no way to audit its functionality. How can we trust something like that with such crucial cryptographic functionality? If your seed your RNGs with predictable seed, then all of your crypto can be easily broken.

      Sure, if CPU is backdoored, then your system is compromised no matter what you do, and it can leak all secrets in whichever way. Most of that can be detected post hoc or even heuristically. What is insidious about potential RdRand-based backdoor is the leak would take form of normal functionality, so there is no payload or suspicious communications to intercept and reverse-engineer.

      I am not saying that RdRand should not be used, I am saying that RdRand should not be used in a way that makes system that easy to compromise. Why, for example, Ts'o did not use mixing function for this? Whole implementation reads like an entry into underhanded crypto competition.

    5. Re:What about RdRand issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, find the MSR that disables rdrand, and we can add it as an option for you. Recently the MSR that enables/disables AES-NI was discovered, together with the fact that some el-shit BIOSes were NOT locking it (which is dangerous as all heck -- it doesn't matter much whether it is enabled or disabled as long as it is locked in that state, but being able to change THAT at runtime is extremely troublesome). A patch to lock it (in whatever state the BIOS left it) is going to show up sooner or later, it would be trivial to also change the state to either enabled or disabled at that point.

      If the AES-NI MSR covers rdrand, you're done. If it doesn't, find the one which does and blog about it, and we can add a kernel command-line parameter to mess with it.

    6. Re:What about RdRand issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is not clear from the context, it doesn't matter much if you remove rdrand support from the kernel, when anything in userspace can just use rdrand behind your back (and THAT includes openssl right now).

      So, a kill-switch for rdrand is what would be really useful. Or buy something that doesn't have rdrand support.

  15. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find it funny, because many times I've been in the same boat with Windows. Where my hardware doesn't work in the latest version (a handful of scanners and printers, not to mention some fax modems that worked fine before needing to be replaced due to driver issues) or I can't rely on certain software running properly (like Redis or PHP with forking). I've even faced interesting regressions that totally kill the ability for some network devices to talk to it (recent changes in how CIFS shares work and having semi-old MFDs that scan and save as PDF to a windows share.) I had to work around that by installing an FTP server on windows and then uploading the PDFs that way. I've also had to shy away from Windows for legal reasons (needing to ensure license compliance can be a pain in certain environments.)

    I do agree, everything has headaches, but the problems are certainly changing and usually very unique between them. A lot of things have to do with user preference, which I appreciate you acknowledging. There has been a tremendous amount of work going into improving Linux (both kernel and distros) and seeing how far it has come in the last 10 years is amazing. I look forward to what things will be like 10 years from now. Competition is good, and seeing everyone struggling to improve and maintain and edge is great for the consumer.

  16. My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Yeah. I really wish there was a tool that would make it easy to export a list of all installed user software which you could could then import into your new system. Unfortunately the only technique I ever found (and I've forgotten what it was at this point) generated a text file listing *every* package installed on the machine - a list nigh guaranteed to bork a machine if I tried to import it all on a different OS version. And good luck sorting out the 10% of user software from the umpteen dozen pages of semi-cryptically named packages.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    1. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Daniel+Hoffmann · · Score: 1

      To me it is not that big of a problem, once I see I need a program I just install it and its configurations are already on my home folder. More of an on demand type of thing. Compared to reseting a Windows box this is easy.

    2. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      openSuSE's YaST install tool can export your list of installed programs.
      Do this once after a fresh install, and then use diff to see what has accumulated over time.

    3. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      My problem is mostly the many dozens of rarely-used but occasionally important programs in my library. I mostly don't remember their names (f.ex. I type "character map" into the menu to find it), and a lot of them I had to go through several alternatives before finding one that suited my needs. To reinstall them without a list I typically have to go through the whole tedious process again.

      But even trying to sit down and remember the dozens of programs I use semi-regularly is a pain in the ass - my mind just doesn't organize information that way.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    4. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I'm not a fan of SuSE, but then it has been a while since I looked at it. Does this YaST list include all programs, or is it possible to just list the "user-accessible" (i.e. shows up in the menu) ones? Because I have no interest in specifically installing the then-current versions of various libraries and support software that shows up in the dependency lists of the software I'm using - time moves on, and package managers seem to have different policies for how upgrades should be handled for stuff that was explicitly installed rather than simply being installed as a dependency.

      Diff is a decent idea though, at least it could eliminate the distribution-bundled stuff from the list. All I have to do is start a fresh install and remember to make that list before I do anything else. And then remember that I did so, and what I did with the file, years later when I'm getting ready to do a new fresh install... ugh.

      For an OS that lends itself to frequent reinstalls in desktop applications, it really seems like the sort of thing that would be well-suited to being integrated into the standard package to save untold man-hours and annoyance.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by turbidostato · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Unfortunately the only technique I ever found (and I've forgotten what it was at this point) generated a text file listing *every* package installed on the machine"

      Unfortunately I fail to see where's the problem.

      "a list nigh guaranteed to bork a machine if I tried to import it all on a different OS version"

      Not my experience.

      Now, my experience:
      1) Debian-based: I don't reinstall that often (now that I remember, my current setup goes in time about 10 years or maybe more).
      2) Debian-based when cloning a machine: when it's been the same release, no problem at all. When the receptor is a different version (newer) I installed a minimal system and then applied the package list. It might fail on some package disappearing or changing names (usually only a few) and then it's a matter to see what failed and act accordingly. Worst case scenario, I had to extract a list of the (partial) setup on the new machine and diff old/new.
      3) Red-Hat based: yes, they are not so great at upgrading in place so I had to resort to the trick in point two. It was a bit longer and required more than one iteration but far from a drama.

      "And good luck sorting out the 10% of user software from the umpteen dozen pages of semi-cryptically named packages."

      From time to time (I mean months or even years, here) I spend no more than an hour looking at the installed package list. I know what most of the packages do, for the minority I don't know, I read its description as provided by the package manager. If still no clue, I try to unistall it and see what reverse-dependencies are going to be unistalled, which always made clear what was happening. Not a big problem either.

      Oh! by the way, a few seconds of google search showed me how to list manually installed packages both for debian-based and redhat-based systems so it seems your concern was not so much a problem even for you as to expend even a minute looking for a solution.

    6. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      In-place upgrades are one thing, and they're great until one goes belly-up - so I usually avoid them. I've got work to do, I'm not interested in an unscheduled rebuild-from-scratch session, and my backup routine only looks at user files. As for the borking issue - I typically skip at least several versions between fresh installs, don't fix what's not broken, and in my experience the (I assume) accumulated changes tend to cause issues.

      Ah, lovely, it does appear that Google has finally deigned to offer up the answers - I spent hours looking last time, which I'm pretty sure was more recently than many of those answers was posted.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "In-place upgrades are one thing, and they're great until one goes belly-u"

      As I already told, the machine I'm writing this from was originally installed about ten years ago and upgraded in place since then, despite of the fact that, by now, it shares not a single piece of the original hardware.

      In fact, in the last almost 20 years (wow, time really goes by!) I don't remember having an in-place upgrade going so bad that I couldn't recover it, and I'm talking hundreds, probably thousands of machines even working remotely on a different continent in all these years.

      I'm sure that all those systems being of the Debian Stable flavour has something to do with my sucess rate.

    8. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by tepples · · Score: 1

      On demand is fine on a desktop. But a laptop isn't always connected to the Internet. For example, you might be riding public transit in a city that doesn't provide Wi-Fi on its buses and at its bus stops.

    9. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Lucky you, but one anecdote does not a broad guarantee make. I've had a couple installs go belly-up on upgrade, and several more develop annoying glitches that I eventually resorted to a fresh install to eliminate (and I'm no IT slouch). My computers are tools - I bought them to do a job and demand they do so reliably. Regular upgrades are incompatible with that goal, especially broad-reaching OS-level upgrades.

      I don't even upgrade the video drivers on my Window's gaming rig unless I'm having driver-related problems, no matter what performance benefits they promise - I've had too many beloved games simply stop working after what should have been a routine update. In the same vein I'm getting incredibly pissed at Steam, which insists on resetting my "don't auto-update my games" preference on every steam-client update. I've lost some truly epic Civilization games to failure to immediately disconnect my internet connection and jump through the appropriate hoops to prevent changes of game rules collapsing my empire, not to mention the games that silently roll out updates that just don't support save games from previous versions.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Step 1: Create a shell script that logs your install command before executing it. Something like this (warning: this is barely tested, and I have no idea what it will do if you pass it arguments involving fancy shenanigans like quotes and pipes and whatnot):

      #!/bin/sh
      prog=apt-get # or 'yum' or 'emerge' or whatever
      echo "$prog $*" >> ~/install-commands.txt
      $prog $*

      Step 2: Alias your shell script to the name of whatever command you're replacing.

      Step 3: Install software as usual. Each time you install a package, it will be logged in install-commands.txt.

      Step 4: When you need to reinstall your programs, run `bash install-commands.txt`

      (Also note: if you use a GUI to install software, you can't easily do stuff like this. Now you know why the command line is better.)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm quite aware of the benefits of the command line, and was a hard-core enthusiast who eschewed GUIs for years. Nowadays I'm even more aware of the fact that it adds several layers of annoyance to what should be a straightforward process of, in the current example, discovering and installing software available in the repository.

      GUI: search for software by type/keyword, see something whose description and screenshots look like it might do the job, hit install. Command line equivalent: ... ... ... ...

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Masked+Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I really wish there was a tool that would make it easy to export a list of all installed user software which you could could then import into your new system....

      There is! Just type....
      $ man pkg

      You are using FreeBSD, right? :P

    13. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Now if only Debian/Ubuntu/Mint/DebianCloneOfTheMonth had some way to do keyword searches on the package list from the command-line.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    14. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "user-accessible" (i.e. shows up in the menu).

      WTF? This is Linux, mate!
      May I suggest reading about shells? Alternatively you'd maybe better stick with the thing from Redmond.

      But seriously: Yes, YaST is the 1-stop-shop for >99% of all the software you'd ever want to install on your machine.
      And yes, it's got a GUI. (zypper is for you if you want CLI)
      In YaST, you can search for a package, and all dependencies will automatically fulfilled.

      For an OS that lends itself to frequent reinstalls in desktop applications,

      It seems you haven't booted into a decent Linux distro for a long time.......
      Get a long-term distro and live happily.
      Or, if you never want to reinstall again, you want to check out the openSuSE rolling release "Tumbleweed" https://en.opensuse.org/Portal:Tumbleweed
      No, it's stable enough for daily use, thank you.

      Just give it a try. You'll love it.

    15. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      May I recommend Gentoo? The list of user-installed packages sits in /var/lib/portage/world, so re-installing on a new system is a simple as copying that file over and running "emerge --emptytree world".

      (And then waiting a few days for compilation to finish, but then, if you weren't patient, why would you be running Gentoo?)

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    16. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      YaST is very useful, but the sheer amount of stuff missing from OpenSUSE's repos means it's not very useful. Really, really staggering stuff. It's terrible. If you are lucky, you'll find someone's personal repo with a moderately-modern version of what you're looking for, but don't expect it.

    17. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And which keyword would you search for to isolate all the software you've explicitly installed, but don't know the name of?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    18. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Shells are great, I grew up on the things, Didn't really give in and started using a GUI on a regular basis until Win95, and even it was configured to boot to the command line on demand. They're also tedious, annoying, and undiscoverable - especially when I just want to get a conceptually simple job done as one small step in an already annoying process. Can't say I have any reason, under normal circumstances, to use the shell tools that would make the job straightforward - which means using them for that one task every few years requires learning my way around a handful of cryptically-documented tools all over again - generally enough work that it's easier to simply tediously dig through the repos for the software I can remember.

      I absolutely stick to the long-term distros, but the repos get crusty fast and I'm getting really sick of having to compile my own software if I want any features added in the last few years. How are the repos for OpenSuse? That's one of the biggest problems I've encountered - seems like if you don't want to compile your own software (and it's a real headache when I just want to see if something actually does what I want - which it usually doesn't), you're pretty much stuck with Ubuntu. Maybe Red Hat or Debian as well, but especially for software that is only available from the developer it seems like Ubuntu is the most commonly supported distro.

      Also, I'm not concerned about "stable enough for daily use", I'm concerned about "I can *guarantee* that my computer will still be working tomorrow without hours of troubleshooting" - that's what has, so far, kept me away from rolling releases.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    19. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by jakimfett · · Score: 1

      A quick google search returns multiple ways to do this. It took me all of 20 seconds to find a one-liner that spit out a full list.

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    20. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by jakimfett · · Score: 1

      If you're using apt, you can just grab a list of manually installed packages.

      --
      Bits of code, random ramblings: jakimfett.com
    21. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      sudo dpkg -i

      lists all installed packages on Debian-based distributions. sudo is there because it requires superuser privileges to use.

      I should probably mention that there's also the "aptitude" package that can be run from the command-line to show a menu-based system for viewing and installing packages on Debian based systems, including searching for packages.

      Among other things, it has options for showing you currently Installed packages and Searching for new packages.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    22. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      -i is for install, did you mean -l ? Doesn't do what I'm looking for, as you say it lists all installed packages, I only want the manually installed, user-accessible ones - the rest tend to be dependencies and distro-specific stuff which may cause problems on other distros.

      Thanks for the attempt though, some others have offered solutions closer to what I'm looking for, as well as pointing out that Google is much better about offering answers than the last time I looked.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    23. Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool. by Phaedrus420 · · Score: 1

      gentoo shill here. eix does a decent job of searching packages from the command line, and your other problem is non-existant; the "worldfile" contains a list of all user-installed packages, and emerge handles dependancies from there.

      --
      And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good... Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?
  17. Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by jones_supa · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'd like to interject for a moment. Sadly, the desktop is still extremely glitchy. Let me show some examples.

    1) Notebookcheck a new Intel NUC. Intel HD Graphics 6000 was missing Linux support at the moment of writing. That's not the end of the world, but how does Linux Mint report about it? Nope, you don't get an informative "device not supported" message, nor does X.org fall back to a VESA mode. Instead you get corrupted graphics! Nice failure mode there. Just look at the screenshot in the article. Does that look professional to you?

    2) When you install Linux, various manual hacks are needed to correct all sorts of little glitches here and there. Read the installation report of this guy. Does that seem familiar?

    3) Laptop brightness adjustment still goes in multiple steps! I can't believe this bug is still around. The same issue is in Ubuntu in Mint and affects most laptops. Bug #527157. Just try pressing the brightness keys of your laptop under Linux and you see what I mean. An everyday feature like this should Just Work without me having to even think about it.

    Conclusion: I need an desktop operating system that is more deterministic in behavior. I want robust and predictable user experience. This is not rock solid at all.

    1. Re:Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You need to accept that Linux is for competent people, and it will never be the right OS for you. Seriously. Just find a website somewhere where people want to hear M$ Fanboi drivel and go there. You add no value here.

    2. Re:Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by turbidostato · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Conclusion: I need an desktop operating system that is more deterministic in behavior."

      Conclusion: you need an desktop hardware that properly makes public its spec and/or provides drivers for more than just a single operating system.

      Somehow I managed to do it for the last fifteen years and more.

    3. Re:Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Poe's law strikes again! I truly have no idea if you're trolling or actually being serious.

    4. Re:Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Intel provides more support and documentation for their hardware than anyone else of consequence. Their graphics drivers are very widely considered the best for linux, and they contribute a huge amount to kernel dev.

      If Intel hardware isnt working right, there are serious problems.

    5. Re:Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Intel HD 6000 has been supported since 2014Q2 release, https://01.org/linuxgraphics/downloads/2014/2014q2-intel-graphics-stack-release. They didn't even do the Windows(tm) thing of installing the drivers from a driver disk or download after install. This complaint is the equivalent of installing Windows without installing the graphics drivers for your card and then complaining when the display looks horrible. Or, the could have done it the Linux(TM) way and installed a distro that included the drivers. 15.04 is in beta release.
      2. Arch Linux is that way. It is a "just this side of roll your own distro". Those were not problems, those are things you do to get Arch up and running. Luckily their docs are awesome. There were a few issues on Ubuntu, but that was mainly because of all of his special requirements (3 OSes, sharing partitions, non-standard gui, etc). I think the screen tearing around docking and undocking from his docking station and the trackpad/trackpoint interaction were his only hardware issues.
      3. The bug (527157) is extremely nitpicky. If the bug affects me, then it seems like a feature. I have 10 levels of brightness. Do I want 20?

    6. Re:Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      1) My point is not whether HD 6000 is supported or not. The point is that there will occasionally be unsupported hardware and the mode of failure should not be corrupted graphics.

      2) I accept your counterargument. It's true that the amount of tweaking depends on the distro.

      3) Some laptops have only about 10 levels of brightness and that amount is halved (or some times even divided into three), which results to 5 levels of brightness. It's too coarse. There are some workarounds to decrease the steps which work with varying degree, but the general problem is that the backlight adjustment event is handled by multiple listeners. This mess should absolutely be sorted out.

    7. Re:Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel's linux video drivers have always been crap. Blame the people who will neither write the things nor release enough information about the hardware for other people to write them.

    8. Re:Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I always get these excuses.

      "It's the distro you're using."
      "You can only blame yourself for choosing wrong hardware."
      "Those drivers are known to be crap under Linux."

      Just make it work!

      I don't want to have to find the optimal combination where the stars are aligned. If Linux actually was good, the situation would simply be: "Use any hardware and software you want. Works great."

    9. Re:Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need an desktop operating system that is more deterministic in behavior. I want robust and predictable user experience. This is not rock solid at all.

      Dude, you need a Mac!

        - Peder

    10. Re:Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      No disagreement there...

    11. Re:Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2) Can be the same for Windows - e.g. installing drivers

      3) It changes in discrete steps on Windows too.

    12. Re:Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      2) Installing the OEM drivers is usually not a major hurdle, but yes, you are correct about that. However, it's still a long way to the constant glitch-fixing under Linux world.

      3) Under Windows the brightness changes one step at time. Under Linux it can incorrectly change two or three steps per keypress.

  18. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They may be in "10", the sweet irony is that Linux is more stable than both.

    Stability hasn't been strong points of Linux for a long time.

  19. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by turbidostato · · Score: 1

    "Oh and you need linux support for all the hardware in your machine."

    Are you implying Windows doesn't need support for all the hardaware in your machine? Seems a bit weird.

  20. Wine runs Windows desktop apps by tepples · · Score: 2

    To run Windows desktop applications on the Linux kernel, you'll need to install the X Window System and the Wine application environment on top of it. (Most desktop-oriented distributions of GNU/Linux include both of these in their repositories.) Try running Windows desktop applications in Wine, and if they don't work, you can report the failure to both the application's publisher and the Wine team.

    1. Re:Wine runs Windows desktop apps by ikhider · · Score: 2

      Have you tried to use Wine for Adobe CC? Good luck!

      --
      "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
    2. Re:Wine runs Windows desktop apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Your comment is totally irrelevant. Photoshop 3.0 has been working perfectly fine for at least a year now!

    3. Re:Wine runs Windows desktop apps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Don't bother application developers with bugs in a compatibility layer. Only bother the one that is actually responsible, Wine.

    4. Re:Wine runs Windows desktop apps by armanox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You mean you're not using Photoshop for UNIX?

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
  21. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I'm saying that I have never had a problem obtaining a driver for windows that allows the device to work as advertised. Not the case on Linux. I've spent hours installing drivers, or installed the 'commercial driver' only to find that the device is missing features or is flaky with KDE and or Gnome. I've had many devices that don't work properly on OS/X.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  22. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if this is what you are saying, but it is a bit much to expect to be able to upgrade your OS and have it still work with all your devices. Windows has a very long support Window so you can still use all Windows 7 devices. I admit I have a dongle that only worked with windows xp and I was pissed about that. But at least it worked in windows. I tried it in Linux and it was somewhat there but not really. IT was a home automation dongle.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  23. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    The big difference is manufacturer support. You can guarantee Windows is supported by every manufacturer - you don't even have to check, it's a given. Linux has a smaller presence, especially on the desktop. Small enough that manufacturers may or may not support it, and even if they do support it their drivers may be less refined.

  24. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by 4wdloop · · Score: 1

    IOS and Windows are "distros".
    Hence Ubuntu being at 15.04...is ahead of the "10ers".

    Sadly, perceptions matter to humans.

    --
    4wdloop
  25. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am just a Greek

    Pay denbts

  26. Such... little details... Find more Here. by lordmage · · Score: 2

    So www.lwn.net has a better section dealing with the 4.0 kernel including what persistent memory and lazytime changes are. I would suggest going there.

    http://www.lwn.net/

    I like to find more information than the smattering that was a "detailed look". as they say.. NOT.

    --
    I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
  27. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Ubuntu is date based versioning, you can't really compare it with those. Any software released this month would have the same version #

  28. variation in user land and "GNU/Linux" by DrYak · · Score: 3, Informative

    In practice Bash is part of most Linux installations.

    Even in the realm of "GNU/Linux" not everybody uses bash (some use zsh, for exemple).

    And that's only the portion of users running an actual "GNU" userland.

    Then you have the embed world using Busybox (with uClib, etc.) and co for the userland (which has its own simplified shell).
    And then you have Android (which runs a completely different user land by Google, like Bionic for a C library, a different message passing bus, and most of the things usually handled by deamon running in userland, handled by java-like code on a java-like VM).

    And the other way arround: you have other Unice (OS X, various *BSD) which obviously do not run Linux kernel, but do run bash.
    OS X, for example, was affected by bash.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  29. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

    Well, no, let them use their date based numbering versions.

    Just remind them that Windows was at version 2000 sixteen years ago...

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  30. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by ruir · · Score: 1

    You lost me at Windows is the most headache fee OS. I left Windows in 95, and never ever will come back. I also have the dubious honour of throwing out of the window of my car a Windows based GPS and buying a Linux based on the same day. The cherry on the top is our Windows admin installing a Linux system for his desktop a couple of weeks ago because he had already had had enough with viruses. Linux may have had all the problems you talk maybe 15 years ago, you have to try it again.

  31. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by ruir · · Score: 1

    Those who say Windows is supposed to have a long support of something have no idea what hey are talking about.

  32. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by ruir · · Score: 1

    You are completely out of your head...in fact Linux supports even better older and newer machines alike. Recently I had to reinstall one old desktop and two older laptops. Windows has not cooperating, it was a walk in the park installing linux, no drivers hassle, nothing at all. Plus, in one of the notebooks I had a specific request for Linux for a non-IT user because they are already tired of dealing with malware.

  33. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by ruir · · Score: 1

    If the reputable AC says so. The fact is that I can have a Linux server going for years, Windows needs periodic reboots, and the latest OS/X crashes at least once a week. But then, the AC knows best, exactly?

  34. Unspecified or undefined behaviors by tepples · · Score: 2

    If the Wine team discovers that a particular application is relying on unspecified or undefined behaviors of a particular Windows function, behaviors that may break in a future version of Windows, then who is responsible?

    1. Re:Unspecified or undefined behaviors by Drinking+Bleach · · Score: 1

      Wine is a compatibility layer for Windows applications. It must emulate all of Windows' bugs and undefined behavior to the best possible extent, even containing a whole bunch of case statements to change its behavior when different versions of Windows are set via winecfg (not unlike Windows' own compatibility mode, which tends to just have every version of every DLL ever in WinSxS to solve the problem...).

      To Wine, Windows bugs are features, and applications depend on them. Maybe it will never be perfect, but Wine's philosophy is basically "If it works in Windows, it should work in Wine" -- even if that comes down to an application running in Windows 95 but not later versions, Wine will try its best to keep that Windows 95 app running, even if you have to set the Windows version to 95 via winecfg. If the app doesn't run, it is a Wine bug.

    2. Re:Unspecified or undefined behaviors by tepples · · Score: 1

      It must emulate all of Windows' bugs and undefined behavior to the best possible extent

      Including applications that take a secure hash of Windows system files and send this hash to a server for verification? This sort of behavior is seen, for example, in cheating detection libraries used by games for the Windows desktop platform.

    3. Re:Unspecified or undefined behaviors by Drinking+Bleach · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that break every time a Windows Update comes through?

      I haven't heard of this behavior before. That would prove problematic I'd think :P

    4. Re:Unspecified or undefined behaviors by tepples · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't [verification of Windows system files in an anti-cheating service for online video games] break every time a Windows Update comes through?

      I imagine that such an anti-cheating service will switch to blacklist behavior on Patch Tuesday until the majority have provided the correct hashes of updated files to the anti-cheating service provider.

      I haven't heard of this behavior before.

      I've read reports of Punkbuster and Games for Windows Live applying something like this. From this post:

      Wine could fully implement the Windows API - but how it return the same hashs, etc. for operating system files?? So it will **never** fully support such products as GFWL, Punkbuster, etc. (that can use low-level access to files to verify that the OS is "genuine").

  35. You sound old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop being old and wanting to keep your pet rocks, hula hoops, and 8 tracks. If you have a support contract with me and you call me then YOU HAVE A PROBLEM: "it does what it needs to do so if it's not broken why should I need to fix it?" It's broken. You're calling me. My answer will be to order something more modern. It's not marketing being cynical at all. YOU are the one who is being cynical in believing that the solution you came up with 20 years ago is better than anything modern you have never tried. As originally stated we have to push feet-draggers like you right off that cliff or shit just won't get done. I'm sorry your old. It happens. What you need to do now is either lead or get out of the way (cause you refuse to follow) before you get pushed off that cliff.

  36. Old shit fail! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For instance, I misspelled "you're". Can I edit it? FUCK NO! What kind of bullshit is that? Old bullshit- that's what!

  37. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by ruir · · Score: 1

    Mode me down all day long in opinion, if you want. Which is not the way mod points should be use but I digress. The fact is that the uptime of a Windows machine can only be measured in months, or actually weeks, OS/X unfortunately for me and others, is crashing at least once or twice a week with it used to be rock solid for months before 10.8, and the uptime of Linux boxes can be measure in months or years, and often I only take them down to do a kernel upgrade. But obviously the slashdot crowd knows best.

  38. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by ruir · · Score: 1

    Mode me down all day long in opinion, if you want. Which is not the way mod points should be use but I digress. The fact is that the uptime of a Windows machine can only be measured in months, or actually weeks, OS/X unfortunately for me and others, is crashing at least once or twice a week while it used to be rock solid for months before 10.8, and the uptime of Linux boxes can be measured in months or years, and often I only take them down to do a kernel upgrade. But obviously the slashdot crowd knows best.

  39. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Not really - Microsoft's love of backwards-compatibility is well known, and features prominently in Windows. The fact you've not got any concrete examples isn't exactly helping you sound any different from an offended fanboy. I know you're not one, so you might want to work on that ;)

  40. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by dave420 · · Score: 1

    I think the main points people are disliking about your posts are: Confusing the notions of "ruir" and "everyone else", mistaking your opinion for fact, and offering your handful of anecdotes as being representative of the experiences of everyone else.

  41. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Never had a Lenovo T440 laptop with inbuilt wireless then (An Intel part no less, and completely shit)

    Given up trying to get it to work with Win8, now have a wireless dongle that works fine. As does Ubuntu in a VM.

  42. Has the Hard Freeze been fixed? by wilberfan · · Score: 1

    I suffered from the hard freeze in 3.17 & 3.18. http://linux.slashdot.org/stor... Anyone happen to know if it's been resolved in 4.0?

  43. Re:fake "Macedonian" Slavs... that is Linus's poin by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    My desktop has a slightly-off ACPI implimentation. Linux (at least this distro) crashes during kernel init unless you add acpi=off. This is a fairly common problem: Windows has a horribly off-spec ACPI system, it's a real mess, but manufacturers test extensively to make sure their mainboards are fine with it and include all the required workarounds. They have little reason to test so extensively for linux, and so can crash when given an OS that actually follows the standard.