Slashdot Mirror
Taking a look forward: Linux 2.4
A reader sent us the latest story from Joe Pranevich regarding the Linux 2.4 Kernel. Much like his original article on 2.2, he takes a look at what's changing, and what's coming. (Hopefully by this fall. Hopefully).
I'm a total newbie, so I'm asking
1. does the wake-one solution, as opposed to the wake-all solution, to a network socket event offer a greater opportunity for a mole process to sit on top of, and effectively control, all network processes?
2. would more low-level access to devices allow a network connection to communicate directly with hard drives, memory and other devices, thereby circumventing control by the os and processor?
While today's "decicion makers" might be "willing" today to give up an unknown but small piece of their privacy and security for the "advantage" of more entertainment trinkets, dvd etc., it seems to me that, in the future, the primary concern will be stability, security and privacy, and not entertainment. After all, there's only so much blood you can drain from a dog. I mean, in comparison to our loss of privacy, How much more entertainment do we really need?
My prayer is that the community makes each decision to allocate critical code time with a view to preserving the prospect of privacy and security for future coders and scientists, and through them all future generations. If this trend toward entertainments (in the vein of let them eat cake, let them click my icon, arguably the only real concept Bill ever invented), even the ability of future coders and scientists to communicate privately and securely with each other, without government surveillance and intimidation, will be compromised.
If Pranevich is right, it doesn't seem that 2.4 will have that focus, and I hope that 2.6 renews it focus on privacy, security and stability, instead of entertainments.
I was increasingly saddened as I read his article. Mr. Pranevich never once used the words "privacy," or "security," or "stability." So, now here I go: There's a potentially dangerous omission here. Were these not exactly the things for which the builder/conceivers of linux made their personal sacrifices, so that we could have this system? Are we to foresake their contribution, and one inherent undisputable advantage of linux, that its concept of privacy, security and stability, for sake moving closer to an "entertainment" os? I hope not.
Forget the paper bank accounts of Bill. They can evaporate in one hour. Focus on building real wealth. Put the words privacy, security and stablility back in the plan for future linux growth. That's my input.
In that case you have used up pretty much all of the resource. Your complaint is like demanding that the glass stop overflowing as liquid is added beyond capacity.
The solution to your problem is to; reduce amount of applications running; increase amount of physical ram on the system; or increase the size of your swap space.
You can even add swap on the fly if necessary as Linux supports swap files. It is done as follows;
'dd if=/dev/zero of=foo-swap-file bs=1024 n=ramsize'
Then as root
'mkswap foo-swap-file'
'swapon foo-swap-file'
and bingo! you have more "ram" to use. It has been done on a system with only 8M ram and more was needed when building some libraries.
Im hope that the kernel guys put a little option in the configuration called "KGI drivers"
thats will rules.
Why don't you log in AC? Perhaps because you know you are trolling? Why else do you hide?
I have no problem with discussions about MS but not on slashdot. Go to microsoft.com or MSDN, I am sure they have press releases. Over here, you are just very delibarately TROLLING.
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
I assume you meant 2.3.12 is working, but it's not. It doesn't even compile on an Alpha (chokes in some structure definitions for the Alpha board architecture definitions).
I'll look around for information on this... Alan Cox's diary specified that 2.2.10ac12 didn't have a fix for the NFS lockd problems, but I'm having more than that.
#1 You KNOW we don't take trolling ACs seriously. If you have something to say at least identify yourself.
... yeah yeah whatever. Thats your opinion and I can respect that, but WHAT exactly are you trying to prove? You know most people here don't agree with you( if you didn't realize that then you have a serious problem) so what are trying to achieve? This is very childish behavior.
#2 "Microsoft is not just out to make money. They have done a lot of good things for the PC."
Yeah, we're really thankful for our daily reboots.
#3 "arcane command line strings are NOT the most intuitive way to use a computer"
Ever heard of KDE or Gnome?
As for your other points
So why don't you run along to www.microsoft.com and have a good time, OK?
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
He certainly has a "right" to do so, but that doesn't mean it makes sense. Try going to the microsoft campus and telling them all how evil they are. You may have a "right" to do so, but a little thought will reveal that this is not the most efficient use of time. The ACs tone was inflammatory and provocative, a well reasoned argument showing the good and bad side of Linux would not be flamed. They asked for it.
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
As for major problems creeping in - uh, that's the point of patchlevel releases (as in major.minor.patchlevel). The filesystem corruption - well, as far as I know it's been mainly due to hardware problems, overclocking and faulty ram and the like. In any case, I think I remember Alan saying something about it being fixed.
Companies want to support Linux (with hardware drivers I suppose)? Great! So just submit the GPL'd driver code to Linus or Alan, get it included, and it'll probably be maintained by some people to make sure that it doesn't break with little tiny changes.
Oh, you mean non-Free, proprietary, binary module type support?
In that case, they can say "This module has been tested to work on 2.2.11. If it works on anything else, that's a complete fluke." as Linus has stated, over and over, that he'll not bend over for the companies who are too anal to release their specs or source code. As far as I personally am concerned, they can go straight to hell, because I'm not supporting them by buying their hardware (Creative Labs, are you listening?) unless they release specs (or the driver's source code).
that happens but not that often. It is far more frequent on Linux when you have to recompile all your stuff cause some idiot didn't think that keeping binary compability between libraries is an importand thing.
Linux is very nice as a server but it's years behind Winas a workstation ...
Yes, they're difficult to write. The difference is, they do not have to be written (at least not the journalling filesystem). Stephen Tweedie has been working on ext3fs, the journalling version of ext2, for some time, even in 2.1-days. When it's finished, it'll probably still be 2.3, and it will be rolled in. Just because it hasn't made its mainstream appearance in the kernel until a certain point, doesn't mean that the work isn't largely finished.
> #1 You KNOW we don't take trolling ACs seriously
... usual /. anti-Microsoft propaganda
:(
/. weenies reading this and thinking "gee I should flame the AC" should probably go and read it. I've read it. I still think linux has a long way to go before I will go out and "sell it to the world". And yes, I have contributed to open source development.
> Thats your opinion and I can respect that
Well, make up your mind. Personally I don't care if an AC posts. I haven't bothered to create an account yet. Call me a troll if you want.
> #2
I don't have any problems with Windows. Last blue screen I had was because of a poor quality driver for my el cheapo video capture board. Time before that, was a defective 64MB stick of ram.
I've done device driver development for linux. I know what buggy device drivers do - freeze the system rock solid. Not even the chance to reboot
> Ever heard of KDE or Gnome?
Yes. I use KDE all day at work. It bears a striking resemblance to Windows. I also have 10 Konsoles open because without them, this system would be almost useless. I use a DOS box in Win98 maybe twice a month or less.
> This is very childish behavior.
> So why don't you run along to www.microsoft.com and have a good time
Now who is being childish. GROW UP it's an operating system, not some sort of tech-head jihad. It's just a tool to help you get work done, you know, the stuff that ensures you get paid every fortnight.
Obviously some people haven't read the Linux Advocacy HOWTO. In fact most of you
Be nice to people, OK? It doesn't hurt.
Most of the time it's
rpm -i filename
or
./configure
make
su to root
make install
exit
and it works.
Sometimes - like with a new version of Apache - I'll throw extra switches into the configure script.
Installing Windows software is generally a little easier, but slower - those stupefying reboots! - and mid-install crap-outs sometimes occur there too, usually with InstallShield just hanging there. At least the gcc/make diagnostic errors can help moderately skilled system administrators track down problems.
And at least we know what library versions we're running - no need to trust those black-box Service Packs. And how do you know you've really uninstalled all of Exchange when you want to load up Lotus Notes?
You spin Linux in the worst possible light, like a paid jr. PR agent. Is that why you get paid to work with Linux all day?
-Doug Lay
1. No more than wake-all, I would wager. Note his comment that "only one process wins", the rest go back to sleep under wake-all. With wake-one, just the one that's going to win wakes up. The rest stay dormant. I don't see how that aids "controlling all network processes".
2. Where exactly did you see this? I didn't see a note saying "Oh, Linus thought that it would be cool to reroute the network system directly into hardware access."
Giving up privacy and security for entertainment? All that was listed was more soundcard support, better memory allocation for the soundcards, and support for the "DoubleTalk". I didn't see DVD mentioned at all, and I'm curious how improved soundcard drivers contribute to less security.
As far as this "If Pranevich is right", and "Mr. Pravenich never once used the words 'privacy,' or 'security,' or 'stability' " angle, may I refer you to the standard disclaimer he posted: " this is a rough draft document, it may be wrong. In fact, it may be very mistaken. It may be choppy, it may have misspelling, it might even break all the syntax rules of the English language. Most certainly it will omit your favorite "pet" change to Linux 2.3 and you may be inclined to send me nasty emails."
I realize you're a newbie, but reading a preliminary list of changes and then extrapolating that everyone working on Linux is omitting things that are in the OS by sheer design doesn't really make sense.
--
One of the element which hurts Linux is only one sound application can use the sound card at a time. Example, I like to listen to MP3 and play quake, but I can only hear only one source (normally the application which grabs the dsp or audio node first). It would be great if the kernel could create virtual nodes to allow various sound apps to access the sounds card at the same time. The kernel (module) would perform the mixing. It would require a new API, but with newer surround sound audio cards coming out it's going to have to be redone anyways.
Linux has had streams for several years now, but it's an add-on because Linus doesn't want to clutter up the kernel. Of course, Linux streams works exceptionally well. If you are insterested you must view the Linux Streams Home Page
Can we have process/thread forking/cloning as fast as with FreeBSD. My P100 with FreeBSD makes an embarassing mess of my K6-233 running Redhat 6.0. p.s. Does anyone know why FreeBSD (and Solaris) can fork so quickly, and Linux not... (p.s. I am not a kernel hacker :-)
John
John_Chalisque
Regarding the 2.3.12 Alpha problem, check
ftp://ftp.alphalinux.org/patches/ or ftp://ftp.twiddle.net/pub/rth/
for Alpha-specific patches.
Not the whole story.
Many Linux applications (Netscape, Kde Window Manager, Gnome, Etc.) allocate memory per application, instead of in blocks for specific purposes within the application. So long as the
application remains open, memory is not freed. This is not a "leak" because memory is released from swap and elsewhere when the entire *application* is closed. With Gnome and Kde it involves a whole subsystem of applications that share memory.
For example, large apps like Netscape and Kde Filemanager (when used for web browsing) do not free memory allocated for web pages which have long since been swapped out, until you close Netscape or Kde. Only a small percentage is released in closing a web page. Most remains in the swap, which grows steadily in time even though you close apps and essentially have less memory in use than when you started X with perhaps an xterm and one filemanager window open. The swap continues to grow as one uses such applications, and eventually no matter how much physical ram and hard disk one has he will run out of memory, even if one is very careful in having only a little memory *IN USE* at a time. The stupid swap continues to hoard memory that was allocated long ago but was never freed by the app in question, which should have done so immediately after that memory was no longer needed instead of waiting for the entire app to close (or in many cases, for X to close). I would call that a severe design which Linux fanatics don't want to talk about or acknowledge.
Instead, it is easier to give lectures to newbies like they are too stupid to realize that there is only a certain amount of memory (physical plus virtual - swap). They know that and do try to keep memory in use to minimum but that does no good given enough time. Even a few hours of heavy
web browsing, even if only one page is open at a time, is enough to bring Linux to a grinding halt.
The workaround is to close the application and restart it (in the case of Netscape) but one can't do that with Kde if one is using Kde as the desktop shell and even with apps that aren't the desktop shell one must exit X (shut it down) because X itself hoards much of that memory, since it is the parent of these apps. Why that should be I don't understand but I can assure you that it is the case.
This means that running Kde for more than a few days if one is using the desktop heavily is iffy. When the swap gets huge, it even often becomes impossible to shut down. The application tries to fee memory buried deep in the swap and can't. Gnome is even worse because it allocates 32 megs of ram right away with *no* apps running (except a Window manager), when using Gnome-Session.
These are design flaws, partly in the apps and partly in the way Linux allocates and frees memory. X may be to blame, also. I suspect that people who run server functions from Linux boxes start the server processes from a regular terminal and not from an X session.
Have a look at http://www.kt.opensrc.org they have
some stats there and it's a good place to check
out what the latest kernel news is. They have
summaries of the linux-kernel mailing list
cheers
-Steve
I think we all agree that there's a very good chance that it will blow.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I heard a rumor the other day that Dave Miller has some pretty cool ideas about how to multithread the IP stack so that using multiple NIC's doesn't hurt as much as it does now. The MindCraft benchmarks, whilst basically being a MicroShit marketing ploy, did help our kernel guys to find bottlenecks in the kernel when dealing with MP machines with multiple NIC's.
But it can still be shown that on a uni-processor machine with only one NIC Linux's IP stack is faster than BSD.
Iggy
Font management is one area where I wouldn't call Linux "cutting edge." Hopefully Red Hat will spend some IPO money to fund a gtk+ front end to the process or something. Still, lots of us have waded through the process, including you apparently. It's not that hard to tidy up. Check back in 6 months.
Linux has a short wy to go as a mass-market desktop. It is already there as a server.
You sound very offended at having text shells open. Hey, text shells are FAST, POWERFUL,low on memory, and great for remote admin. Sysadmins and power users alike should appreciate the text shell. Many do.
Also, did you release the Linux driver that froze your system solid? Someone released the Windows driver that gave you a BSOD.
I think we all agree that there's a very good chance that at least one of Linux 2.4.x where 0 = x = 10 will have a bug as serious as the file system corruption bug in 2.2.x.
Windows isn't perfect. Neither is Linux.
It's time to stop the senseless Microsoft-bashing. Go read the Linux Advocacy HOWTO. Don't complain about the words with more than one syllable that you don't understand.
Flame away. I will sit and feel happy that your intellectual superiority has been challenged.
With the change from 2.0 to 2.2, there were no big changes from the end users perspective (even if everything was re-writen from the ground up), all you needed was a relatively current set of libs, and the transition was relitevly painless. where if 2.4 uses a new file system (ext3, xfs, etc.) this would require a complete re-install to take advantage of the file system. This also may be true with devfs if it is implemented. I realy dont want to see to many tools to convert ext2->ext3 or xfs (remember that fat16 -> fat32 utility for win98 upgrade, I lost many a file system to that tool).
Any code where zero equals x equals ten sounds like it already has all the bugs it needs.
Who said I was advocating Linux, responsibly or otherwise?
That wasn't senseless Microsoft bashing, that was humourous Microsoft bashing, wherein I turned a troll's words against him/her.
I assume you aren't the same AC as the troll,but you really should have indicated so.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
What I personally would like to see is a release cycle with at least 1 year between releases.
Well, if you're having a problem with the way kernels are being released now, just wait a while until you "know" that the wrinkles you're concerned wth are ironed out, and then get the new release.. it's that easy.
Insert mind here.
Unless you want to be rediculed and scoffed at while Gates and Balmer smirk yet at another mindcraft/zdfud test when 2.4 comes out, we need to add this feature. I think the SMB problem that mindcraft/zdnet showed will probably be fixed now but we also REALLY need to support multiple ehternet cards and bind them to each cpu. Since ms still has this beta, we could beat ms to it.
:-(
:-(
Without those things IT managers will make up there mind for sure that w2k is here to stay and no version oflinux will ever replace it. I know this is not important of real world situations but IT managers dont know the details behind particular benchmarks. At work My boss believes that NT is faster then linux with 1 ethernet card because zdnet didnt menion that they used four of them. Its all about benchmarking and we could also finally catch up to *BSD unix's with network serving with this new tcp/ip stack.
All the guys at work believe zdnet makes the highest quality and respectable computer magazines in the world.
I mentioned that they just rate products based on the amount of ads and they laughed and told to to switch to NT4 because you know its faster and you are just pissed that linux isnt as good.
Another bad article by Jesse Berst will probably show that even though linus and Cox knew about the network problem, they just didnt have the competence to fix it. This would bring a negaztive light for those who wonder if opensourcce sfotware could actually produce. More fud articles about the opensource community lack of competence to fix problems would probably follow next after all these magazines were expecting 2.4 to be the answer.
Come on guys get these features out and include hot swaping support as well so DH Brown associates could actually like and recommend linux to bussinesses. SGI's file system would also be nice as well for enterprise minded individuals.
I am running the win2k RC1. And I have been running it for around 2 weeks solid. No reboots, no crashes, no nothing. This is while running programs almost whenevr I'm at home and awake. Winamp constantly, IE5 running constantly, eudora, writing to cd's, making mp3's, etc. Not to mention running RC5. This is alot of stress on a system. My linux box is almost comparable. But guess what. I love them both! Yes! As strange as that is, I run both linux AND windows and love them both. Linux is an awesome server (altho I prefer BSD, I'm one of those people without alot of time and rpms save me that time, call me a weenie.)
I'm actually saddened by the linux community. THe whole spirit of "Free software! Free speech!"is darkened by the "You use microsoft? hahaha, loser!" mentality. Last I checked, Slashdot wasnt a linux only website. Its dominated by linux users, but most of you probably havent even see win2k, and you're already judging. As a matter of fact, I've ran win9x boxes for over a week without BSOD or crashes. THe only problem was programs that like to not give back memory.
I dont consider myself a member of this linux community because I'd be ashamed to be. The constant microsoft bashing is what's childish, not posting about win2k on a message board.
Oh, and my wishlist for kernel 2.4?
USB networking, better Video Capture support, and a better TCP/IP stack.
/me hugs his Linux box and win2k box
What happened to 2.3?
'grep "^N" CREDITS | wc -l' gives me 281 names. That's for people who are named in the Linux kernel credits and therefore have had code included. I have no clue how many people also work on it, rewrite code more efficiently, fix bugs, post patches, suggest things on l-k...
2.3 is alive and kicking.
Is there any effort to going into rewriting the IP stack any to make it threaded & more efficient? I thought this is one area that needs a lot of work (hurt in Mindcraft benchmarks as well as being an area that the *BSD's are superior in).
I don't follow Linux development too closely becuase I don't know enough (yet...) to understand many things, much less contribute. But, does anyone know about how many people actually work on Linux? That is, how many are active and submit code that actually gets added to the kernel? Is there anyone out there who has a fairly accurate count or even a guess?
I knewthat if I waited long enough, I'd be able to use my iMac's scanner, printer, Zip, et al. on one of my boxes.
Only one question remains: Can I use the strawberry mouse and EmulateTwoButtons?
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
Take a look at Linux and DVDs for more information...
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Isn't there a (hardware) decoder available?
--Isaac-Lew, finally employed again
I didn't see anything in there about dvd support. Any active kernel developers have a word on that?
------------------
I have seen FreeBSD and Linux run side by side on a heavy volume network and can say that FreeBSD "seems" to be faster with the TCP stack. This could be due to the OS as a whole being faster or just tweaked better out of the box.
This is a gnu/linux/freebsd/openbsd/netbsd-focused website. If you don't like it, go away.
I haven't heard this idea voiced yet in all the posts so I thought I'd mention it.
Let's say we get clever and start releasing new 2.x versions every 6 months or so. As we do this and as more and more features get added the chance of some serious problem creaping in becomes more and more likely.
Case in point the file system corruption problem that occures in 2.2.10. Maybe the latest prepatch has fixed this.
The other problem I forsee is that having too many major releases of stable kernels, 2.0,2.2,2.4 etc will make it harder for outside companies to support. That is when they're released within a short period of time.
What I personally would like to see is a release cycle with atleast 1 year between releases. This would give more time to iron out wrinkles.
Shawn
What was the point of that? Whats the point of coming to a Linux/UNIX centered website to promote windows? People that use Slashdot frequently don't care about windows, nor do they want to hear about windows..So whats the real point in talking about it? You won't change any ones mind or their thoughts on which operating environment they are going to use. So you more or less just wasted everyones time typing that out.
Hey, it's "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Just because YOU don't want to hear about win2k doesn't mean everybody else thinks the same way.
.. just to name a few things. Yes there are Linux equivalents for most of these but they aren't as easy to install, and aren't as good IMO. Other posters have mentioned DVD, PCI sound cards, better graphics card support, and NFS ... there's plenty of places where Linux can improve.
/. "Micro$oft" bashing annoys me. Microsoft is not just out to make money. They have done a lot of good things for the PC. Contrary to what most techno weenies would think, arcane command line strings are NOT the most intuitive way to use a computer. And installing software should be easier than "./configure --host=i686-pc-linux-... --some-other-stupid-long-option" followed by two hours of cursing and hacking when it fails to compile. You can use RPMs sure, but why does "rpm" need 150 lines of so-called "help" listing all the command line options. And when you have figured out that the best way to install an RPM is "rpm -ivh blah.rpm" there are the inevitable package conflicts etc. to deal with. Intuitive it is not.
.. still more than twice as long as a Win98 install).
/. weenies think about Microsoft, IE5 is THE standard by which all browsers are compared.
.. there is no linux "road map" .. and nothing resembling a beta test program. Instead, it's "Hey, here's a new kernel. Try it out, hope it doesn't break anything for you; if it does, please send us a fix." Talk about alpha quality software. Corporate adopters of linux beware!!
I have a Win2k beta and I too would like some info on newer releases on Linux vs Win2k.. At the moment I use my PC for games, digital camera, USB, Microsoft Office
But that's not the annoying thing about your post... (Rant mode on!)
All this
I want to use a computer as a TOOL for doing work, not as something to play with in my spare time. I use linux all day at work, and I would rather not waste hours at a time with the guts of linux instead of getting work done. Anyone ever try installing debian? {shudder} I spent two days installing it at work before giving up and going with redhat 6 (which was up and running to my satisfaction in 2 hours
It is true that linux is generally more "stable" than Windows. I've had 60 days of uptime before. Then again, I've had the 2.2 "stable" tree file system corruption bug, too. Oh, and Netscape 4.61 has crashed twice on me today. Didn't like me hitting the down arrow key while writing an email. No matter what the
I agree with the original poster
Enough ranting. I have work to do.
What's so difficult about
./configure
make
make install
puh-lease.
Thats is why I get the src.rpm and do a rebuild.
This always seem to work. Once in awhile I will have to install some dev libs or such, but that is no big deal.
How about fixing whatever aspect of shared memory it is that makes my loadavg skyrocket when Netscape or StarOffice slurps up the last of my swap space? It's the only way I've been able to bring linux to its knees lately...
Well, Linus predicted 2.2.0 would come out around October 98, then "by Christmas," and it finally came out in January 99. Based on that track record, I'd predict 2.4.0 will come out around February 2000 or so.
Linux seems to follow the Microsoft release pattern: add six months to the predicted release date. Then, after a "final, stable" release, release 50 or so patches to fix bugs you didn't find before the release.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You mean, like ESR did? :-)
Okay, Okay, I didn't mean to start a big load of stuff bringing out points of which operating envionment is better..I didn't come on here and say "LINUX IS GOD WINDOWS MUST DIE WOOO!" I simply stated that from what I've seen the general attitude of Slashdot users is mostly pointed twords linux/UNIX type operating envionments, I'm not saying which one is better. I think that Windows and Linux/UNIX are simply tools to get a job done. I don't think that bashing Windows or bashing UNIX is right..They both have features which make them useful to one user or another. I think really choosing an operating enviornment is a matter of personal preference. There is no "right" operating envionment, and a end user isn't wrong because he wants to use winodws. So my first post was simply saying that I thought that telling the slashdot polls that win2k was the far better operating envionment was a waste of time on a Linux/UNIX centered website. I'm not stating that I have a right to tell anyone anything. But what I posted was what I thought, and maybe I was wrong, maybe I wasn't.
I don't know how many of you are using Linux in an NFS environment, but for anything more than casual file sharing, the 2.2 kernels and many of the 2.3 kernels can't even keep NFS going between themselves. They seem to make decent clients, but lockd is still broken as of 2.2.10ac12. knfsd still crashes servers sometimes. The user space daemon is fast enough for me (I don't have 40 clients banging on a server), but sometimes clients lose track of handles to the server. On my diskless clients, I seem to do a "mount -o remount,rw /"
:)
more often than I'm doing any work.
I know NFS can work... Linux had excellent NFS support for like three kernel versions somewhere in the 2.1 series. I think we should all make Linus use _only_ NFS for all his work for three months; that would get things fixed in a hurry.
- Faster TCP/IP
- binding NICs to processors
- Useable NFS - one that doesn't crash IRIX 6.5 servers and implements NFS v3
- Guaranteed rate I/O
- Finer kernel locks (this is being done already)
Filesystems/Drivers-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
2.2 took so long to stabilize because Linux allowed things in after the freeze and it takes time to stabilize two years worth of changes.
If Linus freezes 2.3 in (say) early October and sticks to it, I think 2.4 should be out by the end of the year.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
> ./configure
> make
> make install
You are right. It's not difficult.
But, for starters you usually need to be root to "make install". Unless you run as root all the time. Which would be a Bad Thing.
And assuming you don't get screenfuls of (crazy) messages like:
c++/exception.cc: In function `void __check_eh_spec(int, const void **)':
c++/exception.cc:275: type `cp_eh_info' is not a base type for type `cp_eh_info'
c++/exception.cc:278: comparison of distinct pointer types `cp_eh_info *' and `cp_eh_info *' lacks a cast
c++/exception.cc:280: type `cp_eh_info' is not a base type for type `cp_eh_info'
gmake[1]: *** [gxx2.cc-exception.o] Error 1
gmake: *** [stubs] Error 2
which require (non-trivial) fixing. (In this particular case it was a glibc 2.1 vs 2.0 problem.)
By contrast adding and removing programs on a Windows system couldn't be easier. Download a single self-extracting executable, about 5 or 6 clicks to go through the customary InstallShield stuff, and you're done. Uninstall - even easier. I'm assuming you know what the Control Panel is.
BTW the Win2k add/remove control panel is nicer still. Linux has a long way to go.
Oh jeez, this is the stuff that I fear will hurt Linux. I love Linux as much as anyone, but if you have ever USED it (extensively) you have to know that ./configure, make, make install doesn't always work. It doesn't work A LOT of the time. All the conflicts between distros and libraries, etc etc. Face it, it's not as easy as double clicking setup.exe.
Also, the reason I use RPMs when I can is not to make installing them easier...its so I know what is on my system and so I can easily uninstall it.
I am not a Win user (except at work) but I am not blind enough to think that everything is easy as pie. Linux is fun but it takes some fscking work.
And to the guy who said a redhat install takes 2 hours. I can easily do it in 20 mins (on a P150).
Brian
At this point the new program over wrote mcf40.dll
and now all your other apps stop working.
easy HuH ?
People keep saying the jump from 2.2-->2.4 will be much smaller than from 2.0-->2.2. I don't believe that. Linux 2.0 took >2 years. Now Linux 2.4 will be ready in 1 year?? I know we're not talking about Windows 2000 or anything, but Linux 2.4 will have some big new features. A multithreaded network stack and new journaling file system are DIFFICULT to write. They will take a long time to stabilize. Fortunately, these changes are only loosely coupled with the rest of the stable kernel code. Linux 2.0's new memory management code affected every part of the kernel.
> And to the guy who said a redhat install takes 2 hours. I can easily do it in 20 mins (on a P150).
.. but it's often quicker to point and click :)
... Love that -*-lucida-medium-*-*-*-90-100-100-*-*-iso8859-* stuff.)
Sure, the actual install doesn't take too long. If you are happy with all the stock options. I include "one-off" things like adjusting colour schemes, setting up prompts, environment variables, all that kind of crap in the install time.
After all the machines I have installed I can do it pretty fast.. but it still takes a few hours for all my personal preferences to get typed into the appropriate config files. Perhaps it takes less time on Windows because there are fewer options to set up
(I finally got sick of Netscape's ugly default fonts and fixed them all by hacking my X resources. It took half a day and now I have 60 or 70 lines in my ~/.Xdefaults
Like I've said already, linux has a long way to go.
Well, all that is true. I've been there, really. But.... With Linux which has a bundled free compiler you still have a choice to fix the problem yourself or find someone who is able to do this for you.
In most cases all problems compiling Linux sources are pretty minor, unless you get a 2.2.x thingy and try to run it on 2.0.x or do alike nuts.
And it's much better to have a free program that you can put your hands on instead of spending a heap of money on a commercial to realize later that this freaky beast won't work with this and talk to that and sends a bunch of HTML crap attached to your e-mail etc etc.
Again, in Linux you still have a chance to bring it up, otherwise you have to decide whether to call a support or to bite own a*s.
Just IMHO
KuroiNeko
Hello Mr. Fascist Control Freak.
It doesn't matter whether or not you want to hear about Windows, he has every right to talk about it on Slashdot. This is a fundamental principle of the Open Minds movement which was started around 1788 by a guy named G. Washington. I am not surprised however that you, as a member of the rivaling, albeit much younger Open Source movement, have never heard about it.
Wrongo. You do not have to be root to install software. The only time it is essential to be root is if you are installing system libraries or packages. In fact you can add your own libraries and applications as a user to define your environment.
When installing locally:-
./configure --prefix=$HOME (or whatever)
make
make install
When done make sure that your path definitions incorporate the new libraries and executables, and all is well. That way you can do your own development and/or run your own applications without interfering with the integrity of the system.
For example you could within user space define a libc5 development/execution environment without ever installing the libraries and include files as root. Of course you need to have the space available.
No mention? It was released with great fanfare, but I've heard nothing of it since. Does anyone know what the status is WRT 2.4? Is it going to make it in?
I'm not sure which software you're talking about here.. Do you mean, if the software YOU write gets reverse engineered by someone else, you have to pay $1M in fines?
Or does this mean that if you wrote your code by reverse engineering someone else's implementation, you are subject to a $1M fine?
If it's the first situation, it's a complete, bullshit money grab on the part of the company that owns the rights to the encryption scheme, because ANYTHING can be reverse engineered if someone wants to.
The second is a moot point, since you likely didn't agree to the licensing code if you're stealing someone else's, right? However, you'd be subject to standard laws regarding this instead.
Time for someone to reverse engineer this encryption scheme and splatter the net with a free implementation anonymously. Or even a decryptor..
If you're going to rewrite sockets to accomodate threads why not add STREAM support.
If only somebody could get Mentat to release their cool software. Their networking software is specifically written for speed and SMP (and have socket support as well). XTI support would be cool too.
http://www.mentat.com
I don't run Linux at home for a lot of reasons. But I'd prefer Linux if the apps were there and "just worked". I'm a user and don't program much. Other then that, Linux has what it takes to smoke anything from One Microsoft Way.
There are some Linux firewire drivers in development. I haven't gotten them to work yet however.
Linux 2.4 ought to fix scsi as well. Naming scsi disks according to load order is insane.
Windows 2000 is coming out soon, and it'll blow Linux and everything else outta the water.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.