Uhm, I'm definitely not conservative, neither when it comes to software (my machine runs 2.6.2 with Debian Unstable/Experimental), nor politically; I'm a member of the Swedish Centre-party, which is social-liberal/green.
Hmmm. That of course depends on what you use your 2.0.18-machine to do. If you're not connected to the Internet with it, have no malicious users, don't experience any hangs or file-corruption, then I don't see any real reason to upgrade. A system running such an old kernel probably has a reason of doing so.
Huhh?! Last time I checked, Starcraft wasn't available for Linux. I kind of doubt running it in Wine counts... Of course feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'd be happy to buy a copy of a proper port of Starcraft.
My favourite game would be Loki's port of Alpha Centauri/Alien Crossfire, but that's not really an action-game...
Bdoh! JFS is open source... Available at your closest ftp.xx.kernel.org mirror in recent linux-kernels, and possibly in *BSD too (at least I've got a vague recollection of someone doing a port). And to preempt a possible question, yes, it's IBM's own code, not reverse engineering.
I'm pretty sure Adam Dunkels' server was Slashdotted faster; it runs on a C64 after all, so it does not (afaik) handle simultaneous connections... And, yes, that server was on/. too.
Erm. ReiserFS is far from a beta file-system anymore, and if you want a really reliable file-system, why not use JFS? Or maybe XFS? Oh, and claiming that Ext2FS has extreme dataloss on unclean shutdowns (reboots, power-outage etc.) smells of FUD to me. I've so far experienced nothing more than loss of some meta-data...
About Ext3FS, the back & forward-compatibility cannot be said to be something bad; it is based on a very reliable (YES, Ext2FS _is_ reliable) file-system, which has a proven track-record. The main purpose of Ext3FS is to allow simply remounting the file-system as Ext3FS and thus gain journaling; Ext3FS doesn't aim to bring the latest and greatest of file-system development (and indeed, doesn't). Judge it for what it is, not what other file-systems are. Comparing the use of Ext2FS as a base for Ext3FS with the DOS-heritage in Windows is like comparing night and day.
The uptime for my Linux system is _always_ determined by the frequence of kernel-upgrades. Ditto for the Linux-servers at work. Can you honestly claim that this heralds regular, mysterious crashes? Yes, I know of several persons with Linux-machines that crashes; and _without exception_ it is related to use of binary-only drivers (mainly NVidia-drivers, which are equally fatal to the system on Windows-machines, btw...)
Naming a part in a demand is (almost) always wrong and will never be successful. I doubt it's even legal in most cases. The best solution is probably to instead to only provide the money if all software that is installed from now on meets the requirements of the OSI certification, and a careful plan is made for the replacement of the existing software.
This way, even Microsoft would possibly be able to sell software to the University, but hell would likely freeze over before they release anything with a decent OSI license...
I think that the reason Ayn Rand's books seem to divide people into two camps is the fact that they are loaded with politics. Particularly "Atlas Shrugged" asks difficult questions, but sometimes does not provide any answers, and sometimes provides answers that depresses you...
Ehrm, last time I checked, Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World, not George Orwell (1984, Animal Farm).
Now, if you want to read more along the lines of Orwell and Huxley, try "Fahrenheit 451" (Ray Bradbury), "Anthem" and "Atlas Shrugged" (Ayn Rand), "Kallocain" (Karin Boye), and "This Perfect Day" (Ira Levin).
No, the discussion started because someone posted on the Linux-Kernel Mailing-List and suggested that the 2.0-kernel should be deprecated since 2.6 is imminent. He argued that maintenance of 2.0 diverted developer-resources from the newer kernel-series. I don't intend to give up anytime soon.
Thanks:-) But you should read the changelogs for the kernel to see that I'm just doing parts of the job; a lot of people have helped me with this, either by reporting bugs, or sending fixes, or simply by reporting that everything works.
Still, I must say it's nice to hear that my work is appreciated.
I've done 9 pre-releases since January 2001, and I'm probably going to release 2.0.40 any day now (I have one thing to do some research on first.) While the flow of releases isn't quite the same as that of the 2.4-series, it is maintained. Something would be really wrong if I had to release a new kernel every month, 6 years after the release of the first 2.0-kernel...
I open a new revision whenever I get a serious enough bug-report and/or fix, and release pre-patches/release-candidates until everything seems to have slowed down again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Releases every one and a half years or so, with interim releases every month or two seems to be a pretty decent pace for a really stable kernel-series. Most of my users aren't the kind that does regular kernel-upgrades anyway; they usually inspect a new 2.0-kernel very carefully before installing it on their hardware.
Regards: David Weinehall, maintainer of the 2.0-series
Both 2.0.39 and 2.0.40 (-rc6 at the moment, but I intend to release 2.0.40 any day now) contain network related fixes, so if you are scheduling any downtime anytime soon, I'd recommend a newer 2.0-kernel, at least.
If you're seeing trouble with spare superblocks, I'd really like to get a useful bugreport on this, since support for sparse superblocks is in the 2.0-tree from 2.0.39 and onward.
Of course, the other way around can be said too; just because you believe in something doesn't it does exist. And a lot of religions have several gods. Oh, and you do mean "I believe we are all under a god, of some type.", don't you?!
One feature in AIX I appreciate very much is the VM signalling processes SIGDANGER in a near-OOM situation. Would this be a reasonable feature to port to Linux; would it fit into the Linux way of doing VM? And if not, why not?
And what, exactly, has that got to do with Linus' use of BK? And FYI, I did read RMS article. And Larry's answer to it.
As for the firmware issue, I'm not perfectly happy with the situation either, but I suspect we'll have to put up with the situation until someone reverse-engineer the firmware or convinces the hardware-manufacturers to release their source.
Not particularly different from the BIOS in your computer really. You don't currently have the source for it either (I'm hoping that the OpenBIOS project will take us there, though.)
Oh, and I bet that the firmware would get removed from the kernel if you sent a patch that does that and provide ftp-space for the firmware-code. It's Linux, damn it, don't whine, show us the code to fix the problem.
You obviously miss the fact that the source-code for the kernel is available for each and everyone to take up and fork off if your fears came true... If Linus really decides to go BK-development only, then he'll get a code-base fork on his ass faster than you can frag Stef in Quake III.
The fact that Linus is the accepted maintainer of the developmental branch of Linux and owns the trademark, doesn't mean that you can't fork the kernel and call it "Rapid Prototypix"...:-)
Ehmmm, you're missing one thing in this line of thought; these are the same "Kids" that probably stays with Windows in the first place because there are a lot more Games available for Windows... Sure, some weak minds will probably start using BK because of Linus-worship rather than need, but most people intelligent enough to grasp the concept of a SCM-system, are also intelligent enough to make their own decisions.
Slashdot Mirror
Uhm, I'm definitely not conservative, neither when it comes to software (my machine runs 2.6.2 with Debian Unstable/Experimental), nor politically; I'm a member of the Swedish Centre-party, which is social-liberal/green.
No, that's not the problem. I'm perfectly willing to move to wherever the job is.
He (that'd be yours truly) got unemployed only a month ago, so I've been busy doing other things.
You never know... A lot of embedded systems still use 8-bit processors.
Regards: David Weinehall
Hmmm. That of course depends on what you use your 2.0.18-machine to do. If you're not connected to the Internet with it, have no malicious users, don't experience any hangs or file-corruption, then I don't see any real reason to upgrade. A system running such an old kernel probably has a reason of doing so.
Huhh?! Last time I checked, Starcraft wasn't available for Linux. I kind of doubt running it in Wine counts... Of course feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I'd be happy to buy a copy of a proper port of Starcraft.
My favourite game would be Loki's port of Alpha Centauri/Alien Crossfire, but that's not really an action-game...
Bdoh! JFS is open source... Available at your closest ftp.xx.kernel.org mirror in recent linux-kernels, and possibly in *BSD too (at least I've got a vague recollection of someone doing a port). And to preempt a possible question, yes, it's IBM's own code, not reverse engineering.
I'm pretty sure Adam Dunkels' server was Slashdotted faster; it runs on a C64 after all, so it does not (afaik) handle simultaneous connections... And, yes, that server was on /. too.
Erm. ReiserFS is far from a beta file-system anymore, and if you want a really reliable file-system, why not use JFS? Or maybe XFS? Oh, and claiming that Ext2FS has extreme dataloss on unclean shutdowns (reboots, power-outage etc.) smells of FUD to me. I've so far experienced nothing more than loss of some meta-data...
About Ext3FS, the back & forward-compatibility cannot be said to be something bad; it is based on a very reliable (YES, Ext2FS _is_ reliable) file-system, which has a proven track-record. The main purpose of Ext3FS is to allow simply remounting the file-system as Ext3FS and thus gain journaling; Ext3FS doesn't aim to bring the latest and greatest of file-system development (and indeed, doesn't). Judge it for what it is, not what other file-systems are. Comparing the use of Ext2FS as a base for Ext3FS with the DOS-heritage in Windows is like comparing night and day.
The uptime for my Linux system is _always_ determined by the frequence of kernel-upgrades. Ditto for the Linux-servers at work. Can you honestly claim that this heralds regular, mysterious crashes? Yes, I know of several persons with Linux-machines that crashes; and _without exception_ it is related to use of binary-only drivers (mainly NVidia-drivers, which are equally fatal to the system on Windows-machines, btw...)
Naming a part in a demand is (almost) always wrong and will never be successful. I doubt it's even legal in most cases. The best solution is probably to instead to only provide the money if all software that is installed from now on meets the requirements of the OSI certification, and a careful plan is made for the replacement of the existing software.
This way, even Microsoft would possibly be able to sell software to the University, but hell would likely freeze over before they release anything with a decent OSI license...
I think that the reason Ayn Rand's books seem to divide people into two camps is the fact that they are loaded with politics. Particularly "Atlas Shrugged" asks difficult questions, but sometimes does not provide any answers, and sometimes provides answers that depresses you...
Ehrm, last time I checked, Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World, not George Orwell (1984, Animal Farm).
Now, if you want to read more along the lines of Orwell and Huxley, try "Fahrenheit 451" (Ray Bradbury), "Anthem" and "Atlas Shrugged" (Ayn Rand), "Kallocain" (Karin Boye), and "This Perfect Day" (Ira Levin).
No, the discussion started because someone posted on the Linux-Kernel Mailing-List and suggested that the 2.0-kernel should be deprecated since 2.6 is imminent. He argued that maintenance of 2.0 diverted developer-resources from the newer kernel-series. I don't intend to give up anytime soon.
Thanks :-) But you should read the changelogs for the kernel to see that I'm just doing parts of the job; a lot of people have helped me with this, either by reporting bugs, or sending fixes, or simply by reporting that everything works.
Still, I must say it's nice to hear that my work is appreciated.
I've done 9 pre-releases since January 2001, and I'm probably going to release 2.0.40 any day now (I have one thing to do some research on first.) While the flow of releases isn't quite the same as that of the 2.4-series, it is maintained. Something would be really wrong if I had to release a new kernel every month, 6 years after the release of the first 2.0-kernel...
I open a new revision whenever I get a serious enough bug-report and/or fix, and release pre-patches/release-candidates until everything seems to have slowed down again. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Releases every one and a half years or so, with interim releases every month or two seems to be a pretty decent pace for a really stable kernel-series. Most of my users aren't the kind that does regular kernel-upgrades anyway; they usually inspect a new 2.0-kernel very carefully before installing it on their hardware.
Regards: David Weinehall, maintainer of the 2.0-series
Both 2.0.39 and 2.0.40 (-rc6 at the moment, but I intend to release 2.0.40 any day now) contain network related fixes, so if you are scheduling any downtime anytime soon, I'd recommend a newer 2.0-kernel, at least.
Regards: David Weinehall
Ehrm, forget this. A brainfart on my behalf; I intended to reply to the parent.
If you're seeing trouble with spare superblocks, I'd really like to get a useful bugreport on this, since support for sparse superblocks is in the 2.0-tree from 2.0.39 and onward.
Regards: David Weinehall, 2.0 maintainer
Care to send me a proper bug-report on this one?
David Weinehall, 2.0 maintainer .
Of course, the other way around can be said too; just because you believe in something doesn't it does exist. And a lot of religions have several gods. Oh, and you do mean "I believe we are all under a god, of some type.", don't you?!
Oh, and I'd have gone for #4.
One feature in AIX I appreciate very much is the VM signalling processes SIGDANGER in a near-OOM situation. Would this be a reasonable feature to port to Linux; would it fit into the Linux way of doing VM? And if not, why not?
And what, exactly, has that got to do with Linus' use of BK? And FYI, I did read RMS article. And Larry's answer to it.
As for the firmware issue, I'm not perfectly happy with the situation either, but I suspect we'll have to put up with the situation until someone reverse-engineer the firmware or convinces the hardware-manufacturers to release their source. Not particularly different from the BIOS in your computer really. You don't currently have the source for it either (I'm hoping that the OpenBIOS project will take us there, though.)
Oh, and I bet that the firmware would get removed from the kernel if you sent a patch that does that and provide ftp-space for the firmware-code. It's Linux, damn it, don't whine, show us the code to fix the problem.
You obviously miss the fact that the source-code for the kernel is available for each and everyone to take up and fork off if your fears came true... If Linus really decides to go BK-development only, then he'll get a code-base fork on his ass faster than you can frag Stef in Quake III.
The fact that Linus is the accepted maintainer of the developmental branch of Linux and owns the trademark, doesn't mean that you can't fork the kernel and call it "Rapid Prototypix"... :-)
Ehmmm, you're missing one thing in this line of thought; these are the same "Kids" that probably stays with Windows in the first place because there are a lot more Games available for Windows... Sure, some weak minds will probably start using BK because of Linus-worship rather than need, but most people intelligent enough to grasp the concept of a SCM-system, are also intelligent enough to make their own decisions.
Use of BitKeeper is not mandated for kernel development. Linus has promised it never will become either.