You might be running into the same bug I ran into with my Athlon 1900 with the KT333 chipset... I think it also started around 2.6.12. Try adding the boot parameters 'noapic nolapic' to your boot manager. It might stabilize things.
Or just stay at 2.6.16, if that's working. Note that there have been three kernel updates since 2.6.16.11, so you need to recompile/reboot. Again.
They're at three entire days without a kernel release. Things may be looking up.
Well I, for one, use Debian. There have been six or seven Debian kernel updates in the last couple of weeks. Testing isn't as bad as 'unstable' in that regard, but the 'testing' kernel (2.6.15) blows up on my Intel 865 machines. If I get an hour of uptime from that kernel, I'm lucky.
Debian uses the Linus kernel tree with just a few patches. It always has. So when Linus' kernel is unstable, my system is unstable, and it pisses me off.
As far as cameras go, they've figured that out in some cases, although you do have to shop some. I have a Casio Exilim EX-Z750, and it's less than a second from power-on to being ready to shoot... and that includes time to extend the lens. It's ready well before I am.
A film camera might be just a hair faster, but I can't imagine missing a shot because the 750 was too slow. And I get the result almost instantly, so I know if I need to take more pictures.
THere are definitely slow digital cameras out there... my mother has one, and she dislikes it very much. But they're not all like that.
All you're showing here is that Gentoo's idea of stability is quite a lot different than that of the kernel devs. As I said above... there have been fourteen releases of 2.6.16 in the last six weeks.
2.4 took a huge dive in quality because Linus did exactly the same thing with it that he's doing in 2.6... he refused to leave it alone. 2.4 didn't stabilize until Linus branched to 2.5, and let Marcelo take over.
What I'm saying is that Linus needs to branch to 2.7, and let 2.6 stabilize. FOURTEEN RELEASES in the last six weeks, and this is the STABLE kernel.
I don't expect bug free software. I DO expect 'stable' software to have a longer shelf life than two months.
Since when? Unless something has changed since I bought my Exos-AL, you absolutely have to pull the motherboard to install a CPU cooler. The bracket supporting the waterblock requires two empty holes in the motherboard, to which you bolt the support bracket for the cooler. It's done with two simple threaded bolts to nuts on the other side, and the only way I've found to get the nuts in the right place is by pulling the motherboard.
It'd be nice if they had coolers that clipped into the existing cooling brackets, but I'm not aware that they make any.
(Other than the hassle of installation, I do think it's a good product, btw. )
Scaling in both modern LCDs and modern graphics cards is really very good. I'm running a Dell 2405 (1920x1200 native), and all of the lesser resolutions I've tried have been highly playable. It's really quite remarkable... I'd call the display in low res modes only barely inferior to a CRT. In high res, of course, you get the benefits of LCDs for regular work, like ClearType and no flicker.
At this point, unless you're in some way dependent on the slightly more accurate color reproduction on CRTs, a good-quality LCD is definitely the way to go.
I don't use Linus' tree anymore, and haven't for a couple years. This in and of itself annoys me; there's no more One True Linux that everyone can write to. Instead, everyone has to write to and test on their specific distro's kernel, and hope like heck it works with the bugfixes other distros have adopted.
I use Debian's tree, and even with that extra layer of filtering in the way, I've had all of the above-listed problems. If the kernel devs themselves can't be bothered to make things work right, what on earth makes you think the presumably lesser lights on most distro kernel teams are going to do any better? Are they somehow more qualified to fix bugs than the people who WROTE the software?
Quality is not something that can be retrofit. If the source is screwed up, especially with security issues, it's extremely difficult for anyone but the actual authors to make it work right. Unless and until they back off and let the code stabilize, the 2.6 kernel will continue to get worse.
Windows is _a lot_ more stable than 2.6 is, these days. I have deep reservations about recommending Linux to any business that needs reliability.
Now the forum has recieved a threatening letter from Apple's legal staff, requesting a link to this image [pictured above] be removed because "The Service Source manual for the MacBook Pro is Apple's intellectual property and is protected by U.S. copyright law."
And your so-called proof to the contrary appears to be nothing of the sort. All I see is rambling about copyright law.
Even you say there were TWO NOTICES. I'm talking about the first one, which is stupid. The second one may be justified, but it in no way invalidates my original comment.
Before you start correcting other posters, you might want to get your own facts straight. You obviously KNOW them, but you're having trouble arranging them in a sensible way.
They're sending threatening letters for ONE PAGE out of a technical manual. What planet did you grow up on that this wouldn't be considered fair use? And for that matter, what planet are you living on NOW that Apple spending money sending these letters is of any benefit to you, the shareholder, whatsoever?
All it's doing is decreasing your dividend by a small amount, in exchange for absolutely no benefit.
On recent kernels, you can't be both secure and have that kind of uptime. There have been like SEVEN patches to 2.6.16 to address problems, mostly security-related ones.
If the current security problems go back to 2.6.8 (and they may not, the kernel has been in frantic development since about that time), then if you haven't already been rooted by your kids, you have either ignorant or well-behaved students.
I'm not showing that Debian's 2.6.8 has been updated since December, so you may be okay.... but considering the number of issues that hit in January, I'd be a little nervous. It's hard to decipher what packages go with what releases from just browsing the pool repository, so I wouldn't lose sleep over this, but you might want to check.
If they're keeping 2.6.8 patched and it's working for you, STAY THERE. The later revisions are terrible.
The most fundamental functions of a kernel are to be stable and secure. Those two goals have been... well, if not outright abandoned, then certainly put on a back burner.
I've said this, here and elsewhere, over and over and over. Quality is something that has to be in software FROM THE START. It's not something you can retrofit.
As soon as the kernel dev team decided that Linus' kernel didn't need to be stable anymore, as soon as they started waving their hands in the air and expecting 'the distros' to magically fix their problems, OF COURSE quality took a dive. One of the kernel devs said that it was okay for only one out of three 'stable' kernels to actually be stable! Stability takes a long time... they now refuse to support a given kernel for more than a couple of months. The 2.4 kernel still has a few problems, and it's been around for, what, six years now? Supporting a given kernel release for only a couple of months is impossibly stupid from a stability perspective.
They're doing it this way because they're tired of doing the painful, annoying, tedious task of making sure the kernel always works. And the 2.6 kernel has, as a result, been a steaming pile of crap. Features don't matter if the fucking kernel doesn't stay up. No kernel since about 2.6.8 has worked in APIC mode on my ASUS KT333 board. 2.6.15 crashes my Intel 865 chipset servers randomly; they rarely stay up more than an hour or so. 2.6.14 broke traceroute. And with the constant stream of patches to their security fuckups, my system uptimes rarely exceed two weeks. Remember being proud of your kernel uptimes?
The social contract with Linux for many years was essentially: "The official kernel tree is as stable as we know how to make it. You can trust this code." And that is what got Linux as far as it has gotten... the fact that you could TRUST IT. It NEVER fell over. The 2.2 kernel was one of the finest pieces of software I've ever run. 2.4 took a huge dive in terms of stability, and was a total mess until Linus branched off to 2.5 and let the poor harried 2.4 maintainer, Marcelo Tosatti, take it over. He finally whipped it into shape. He has done an outstanding job.
What Linus et al need to do is GO PLAY IN THEIR SANDBOX IN 2.7. Let 2.6 fucking stabilize. They're shoving new features down our throats so fast that it's a part-time job just keeping up with the new stuff... and obviously NOBODY understands the security implications of moving this fast, or we wouldn't have so many goddamn security patches. We're gonna be having those security patches for YEARS because of this bullshit. The number of possible interactions in a system goes up exponentially with the number of features... so adding features should slow down over time, not speed up.
Go BACK TO THE OLD SYSTEM. People crying about 'too slow release schedules' is a HELL of a lot better than people crying about Linux being unstable. Linux *owned* the word stability for many years, and it's in very real danger of losing it, right at its height of popularity. The old system worked. It got Linux where it is today.
A simple 'bugfix release' won't do shit... it's the process that's broken. It'll fix some of today's bugs, but what about next week?
For those not familiar with Myth: The Fallen Lords, they were a series of tactical "wargames"... sort of like the RTS games, but with a fixed budget to buy units when you started the game. The idea was generally to be the last person alive. The engine was remarkably sophisticated for the time, including things like animals grazing, and birds flying about.
Dwarves were sort of the artillery unit for the 'good guys'. They tossed Molotov cockails, which could be annoyingly imprecise and prone to misfiring... but they'd literally blow enemy units into pieces. (and the system tracked the pieces!)
The best movie of Myth that I ever saw started out pretty typical... a pitched battle between good guys and bad guys, going back and forth. It was getting into the toe-to-toe phase, and the light-side player told his dwarf to attack. He lit the fuse, cocked his arm, hurled the bomb.... and it bounced off a bird overhead, fell down onto his own army, and obliterated the player's entire side.
Funniest thing I ever saw. And people wonder why games don't do that well anymore... if they had a tenth of the creativity and atmosphere of Myth, but took advantage of modern hardware, they'd probably move ten million copies.
They're making more cashflow, but often are driven into unprofitability and bankruptcy by their relationship with Walmart.... stories of this abound. It's an abusive relationship, wherein Walmart dictates what price will be paid. Trying to meet the impossible new pricepoints each year, company after company self-destructs.
It may be good for consumers (somewhat debatable, as quality is the first thing to go), and if you're the low-cost leader in your segment, it can be a good relationship.... Walmart pays its bills very promptly and does exactly what it says it will do. But if you're so foolish as to make a high-quality product, or employ high-paid American workers, trying to satisfy Walmart is likely to kill your company.
I saw some discussion about this over on Metafilter. One of the comments in this thread about Pinknews being dropped from AdSense says that it may be a side effect of Google's right hand not knowing what the left one is doing.
The commenter mentioned that AdSense had been placing a lot of high-CPC ads on his site, and shortly thereafter, he was banned. He suspects that Google's marketing department decided to push some big-revenue ads out there, and then the Fraud department, running their usual heuristics, noted spikes in big-revenue clicks. So they disabled many perfectly legitimate webmasters for something that Google itself caused. You could argue that this is fraud on Google's part, since these webmasters are deprived of legitimately-earned revenue. Worse, since they're banned for life from the program, in many cases their small businesses will be destroyed. And there is no appeal and no recourse.
In fact, there is absolutely no way to talk to Google about any of this, so problems like this only get worse. I suspect it may take lawsuits to get them to change their ways.
Google's mantra needs to add: "Do as little accidental evil as possible, and fix it when we do." But I don't see that happening soon.
Microsoft is leveraging their dominance in one market -- operating systems -- to force entry into another market -- search engines.
Instead of competing on the merits, they're defaulting all installs of the OS (IE7 is the OS, per their own desperate arguments, remember) to search using their search engine product. Google is the established leader in search engines, so this will demonstrably and clearly harm their business.
If Microsoft weren't a monopoly, yeah, this would be business as usual. If Apple coded Safari to use an Apple-created search engine, it'd be no big deal.
But when you're a monopoly, the rules change. The purveyor of 90% of all the operating systems in the world, a convicted monopolist, is changing that OS to damage the business of a competitor in another field. By any historic standard, that's illegal.
All of us manage IP space, to some degree or another.
Clear description of requirements is always important. He might need something you don't think is important, and you could recommend the wrong package/system. Or, he may not need nearly as much management as you do, and you could recommend a package that's far too expensive or complex.
'Manage', in other words, means different things to different people. Giving advice without a very clear requirement specification is difficult and error-prone.
This is just a tax increase, pure and simple. They say 'it's for the schools!' so people will vote for it. But all they do is then take away the other money that WAS going to the schools.
It's just a general tax increase aimed at an unpopular target.
Slashdot Mirror
You might be running into the same bug I ran into with my Athlon 1900 with the KT333 chipset... I think it also started around 2.6.12. Try adding the boot parameters 'noapic nolapic' to your boot manager. It might stabilize things.
Or just stay at 2.6.16, if that's working. Note that there have been three kernel updates since 2.6.16.11, so you need to recompile/reboot. Again.
They're at three entire days without a kernel release. Things may be looking up.
Well I, for one, use Debian. There have been six or seven Debian kernel updates in the last couple of weeks. Testing isn't as bad as 'unstable' in that regard, but the 'testing' kernel (2.6.15) blows up on my Intel 865 machines. If I get an hour of uptime from that kernel, I'm lucky.
Debian uses the Linus kernel tree with just a few patches. It always has. So when Linus' kernel is unstable, my system is unstable, and it pisses me off.
Is THAT point clear enough for you, AC?
"Beer, stat! There's too much blood in my alcohol supply!"
At E3, Nintendo will demonstrate that it has the biggest Wii of all.
Lest Americans be intimidated, they will, of course, immediately port Chinpokomon.
As far as cameras go, they've figured that out in some cases, although you do have to shop some. I have a Casio Exilim EX-Z750, and it's less than a second from power-on to being ready to shoot... and that includes time to extend the lens. It's ready well before I am.
A film camera might be just a hair faster, but I can't imagine missing a shot because the 750 was too slow. And I get the result almost instantly, so I know if I need to take more pictures.
THere are definitely slow digital cameras out there... my mother has one, and she dislikes it very much. But they're not all like that.
All you're showing here is that Gentoo's idea of stability is quite a lot different than that of the kernel devs. As I said above... there have been fourteen releases of 2.6.16 in the last six weeks.
2.4 took a huge dive in quality because Linus did exactly the same thing with it that he's doing in 2.6... he refused to leave it alone. 2.4 didn't stabilize until Linus branched to 2.5, and let Marcelo take over.
What I'm saying is that Linus needs to branch to 2.7, and let 2.6 stabilize. FOURTEEN RELEASES in the last six weeks, and this is the STABLE kernel.
I don't expect bug free software. I DO expect 'stable' software to have a longer shelf life than two months.
FOURTEEN releases. I missed one.
As I write this, there have been THIRTEEN releases of 2.6.16, most of which were to address security flaws. What more do you need?
Since when? Unless something has changed since I bought my Exos-AL, you absolutely have to pull the motherboard to install a CPU cooler. The bracket supporting the waterblock requires two empty holes in the motherboard, to which you bolt the support bracket for the cooler. It's done with two simple threaded bolts to nuts on the other side, and the only way I've found to get the nuts in the right place is by pulling the motherboard.
It'd be nice if they had coolers that clipped into the existing cooling brackets, but I'm not aware that they make any.
(Other than the hassle of installation, I do think it's a good product, btw. )
Scaling in both modern LCDs and modern graphics cards is really very good. I'm running a Dell 2405 (1920x1200 native), and all of the lesser resolutions I've tried have been highly playable. It's really quite remarkable... I'd call the display in low res modes only barely inferior to a CRT. In high res, of course, you get the benefits of LCDs for regular work, like ClearType and no flicker.
At this point, unless you're in some way dependent on the slightly more accurate color reproduction on CRTs, a good-quality LCD is definitely the way to go.
I don't use Linus' tree anymore, and haven't for a couple years. This in and of itself annoys me; there's no more One True Linux that everyone can write to. Instead, everyone has to write to and test on their specific distro's kernel, and hope like heck it works with the bugfixes other distros have adopted.
I use Debian's tree, and even with that extra layer of filtering in the way, I've had all of the above-listed problems. If the kernel devs themselves can't be bothered to make things work right, what on earth makes you think the presumably lesser lights on most distro kernel teams are going to do any better? Are they somehow more qualified to fix bugs than the people who WROTE the software?
Quality is not something that can be retrofit. If the source is screwed up, especially with security issues, it's extremely difficult for anyone but the actual authors to make it work right. Unless and until they back off and let the code stabilize, the 2.6 kernel will continue to get worse.
Windows is _a lot_ more stable than 2.6 is, these days. I have deep reservations about recommending Linux to any business that needs reliability.
And your so-called proof to the contrary appears to be nothing of the sort. All I see is rambling about copyright law.
Even you say there were TWO NOTICES. I'm talking about the first one, which is stupid. The second one may be justified, but it in no way invalidates my original comment.
Before you start correcting other posters, you might want to get your own facts straight. You obviously KNOW them, but you're having trouble arranging them in a sensible way.
They're sending threatening letters for ONE PAGE out of a technical manual. What planet did you grow up on that this wouldn't be considered fair use? And for that matter, what planet are you living on NOW that Apple spending money sending these letters is of any benefit to you, the shareholder, whatsoever?
All it's doing is decreasing your dividend by a small amount, in exchange for absolutely no benefit.
On recent kernels, you can't be both secure and have that kind of uptime. There have been like SEVEN patches to 2.6.16 to address problems, mostly security-related ones.
If the current security problems go back to 2.6.8 (and they may not, the kernel has been in frantic development since about that time), then if you haven't already been rooted by your kids, you have either ignorant or well-behaved students.
I'm not showing that Debian's 2.6.8 has been updated since December, so you may be okay.... but considering the number of issues that hit in January, I'd be a little nervous. It's hard to decipher what packages go with what releases from just browsing the pool repository, so I wouldn't lose sleep over this, but you might want to check.
If they're keeping 2.6.8 patched and it's working for you, STAY THERE. The later revisions are terrible.
The most fundamental functions of a kernel are to be stable and secure. Those two goals have been ... well, if not outright abandoned, then certainly put on a back burner.
I've said this, here and elsewhere, over and over and over. Quality is something that has to be in software FROM THE START. It's not something you can retrofit.
As soon as the kernel dev team decided that Linus' kernel didn't need to be stable anymore, as soon as they started waving their hands in the air and expecting 'the distros' to magically fix their problems, OF COURSE quality took a dive. One of the kernel devs said that it was okay for only one out of three 'stable' kernels to actually be stable! Stability takes a long time... they now refuse to support a given kernel for more than a couple of months. The 2.4 kernel still has a few problems, and it's been around for, what, six years now? Supporting a given kernel release for only a couple of months is impossibly stupid from a stability perspective.
They're doing it this way because they're tired of doing the painful, annoying, tedious task of making sure the kernel always works. And the 2.6 kernel has, as a result, been a steaming pile of crap. Features don't matter if the fucking kernel doesn't stay up. No kernel since about 2.6.8 has worked in APIC mode on my ASUS KT333 board. 2.6.15 crashes my Intel 865 chipset servers randomly; they rarely stay up more than an hour or so. 2.6.14 broke traceroute. And with the constant stream of patches to their security fuckups, my system uptimes rarely exceed two weeks. Remember being proud of your kernel uptimes?
The social contract with Linux for many years was essentially: "The official kernel tree is as stable as we know how to make it. You can trust this code." And that is what got Linux as far as it has gotten... the fact that you could TRUST IT. It NEVER fell over. The 2.2 kernel was one of the finest pieces of software I've ever run. 2.4 took a huge dive in terms of stability, and was a total mess until Linus branched off to 2.5 and let the poor harried 2.4 maintainer, Marcelo Tosatti, take it over. He finally whipped it into shape. He has done an outstanding job.
What Linus et al need to do is GO PLAY IN THEIR SANDBOX IN 2.7. Let 2.6 fucking stabilize. They're shoving new features down our throats so fast that it's a part-time job just keeping up with the new stuff... and obviously NOBODY understands the security implications of moving this fast, or we wouldn't have so many goddamn security patches. We're gonna be having those security patches for YEARS because of this bullshit. The number of possible interactions in a system goes up exponentially with the number of features... so adding features should slow down over time, not speed up.
Go BACK TO THE OLD SYSTEM. People crying about 'too slow release schedules' is a HELL of a lot better than people crying about Linux being unstable. Linux *owned* the word stability for many years, and it's in very real danger of losing it, right at its height of popularity. The old system worked. It got Linux where it is today.
A simple 'bugfix release' won't do shit... it's the process that's broken. It'll fix some of today's bugs, but what about next week?
For those not familiar with Myth: The Fallen Lords, they were a series of tactical "wargames"... sort of like the RTS games, but with a fixed budget to buy units when you started the game. The idea was generally to be the last person alive. The engine was remarkably sophisticated for the time, including things like animals grazing, and birds flying about.
Dwarves were sort of the artillery unit for the 'good guys'. They tossed Molotov cockails, which could be annoyingly imprecise and prone to misfiring... but they'd literally blow enemy units into pieces. (and the system tracked the pieces!)
The best movie of Myth that I ever saw started out pretty typical... a pitched battle between good guys and bad guys, going back and forth. It was getting into the toe-to-toe phase, and the light-side player told his dwarf to attack. He lit the fuse, cocked his arm, hurled the bomb.... and it bounced off a bird overhead, fell down onto his own army, and obliterated the player's entire side.
Funniest thing I ever saw. And people wonder why games don't do that well anymore... if they had a tenth of the creativity and atmosphere of Myth, but took advantage of modern hardware, they'd probably move ten million copies.
They're making more cashflow, but often are driven into unprofitability and bankruptcy by their relationship with Walmart.... stories of this abound. It's an abusive relationship, wherein Walmart dictates what price will be paid. Trying to meet the impossible new pricepoints each year, company after company self-destructs.
It may be good for consumers (somewhat debatable, as quality is the first thing to go), and if you're the low-cost leader in your segment, it can be a good relationship.... Walmart pays its bills very promptly and does exactly what it says it will do. But if you're so foolish as to make a high-quality product, or employ high-paid American workers, trying to satisfy Walmart is likely to kill your company.
Actually, they probably would agree with the GP wholeheartedly. Walmart destroys its suppliers.
I saw some discussion about this over on Metafilter. One of the comments in this thread about Pinknews being dropped from AdSense says that it may be a side effect of Google's right hand not knowing what the left one is doing.
The commenter mentioned that AdSense had been placing a lot of high-CPC ads on his site, and shortly thereafter, he was banned. He suspects that Google's marketing department decided to push some big-revenue ads out there, and then the Fraud department, running their usual heuristics, noted spikes in big-revenue clicks. So they disabled many perfectly legitimate webmasters for something that Google itself caused. You could argue that this is fraud on Google's part, since these webmasters are deprived of legitimately-earned revenue. Worse, since they're banned for life from the program, in many cases their small businesses will be destroyed. And there is no appeal and no recourse.
In fact, there is absolutely no way to talk to Google about any of this, so problems like this only get worse. I suspect it may take lawsuits to get them to change their ways.
Google's mantra needs to add: "Do as little accidental evil as possible, and fix it when we do." But I don't see that happening soon.
"Like it or not, Nintendo intends to shove Wii down your throat."
Microsoft is leveraging their dominance in one market -- operating systems -- to force entry into another market -- search engines.
Instead of competing on the merits, they're defaulting all installs of the OS (IE7 is the OS, per their own desperate arguments, remember) to search using their search engine product. Google is the established leader in search engines, so this will demonstrably and clearly harm their business.
If Microsoft weren't a monopoly, yeah, this would be business as usual. If Apple coded Safari to use an Apple-created search engine, it'd be no big deal.
But when you're a monopoly, the rules change. The purveyor of 90% of all the operating systems in the world, a convicted monopolist, is changing that OS to damage the business of a competitor in another field. By any historic standard, that's illegal.
All of us manage IP space, to some degree or another.
Clear description of requirements is always important. He might need something you don't think is important, and you could recommend the wrong package/system. Or, he may not need nearly as much management as you do, and you could recommend a package that's far too expensive or complex.
'Manage', in other words, means different things to different people. Giving advice without a very clear requirement specification is difficult and error-prone.
This is just a tax increase, pure and simple. They say 'it's for the schools!' so people will vote for it. But all they do is then take away the other money that WAS going to the schools.
It's just a general tax increase aimed at an unpopular target.