![Upgrades Upgrades](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/upgrades_64.png)
![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![Linux Linux](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/linux_64.png)
Last 2.5.x Linux Kernel Released 400
Kourino writes "Today on LKML,
Linus released 2.5.75, which he said will be "the last 2.5.x kernel from me", and that he and Andrew Morton are going to start a 2.6-pre series soon. While this certainly does mean things could get interesting soon, don't hold your breath about seeing the actual 2.6 for a while; there are still many areas that need work. This essentially means that the development branch is going into maintenance mode, and new features probably won't get in after this point. Changes of note in 2.5.75 include a merge of the anticipatory scheduler from Andrew Morton's -mm tree and updates from several architectures."
Argh (Score:3, Interesting)
Easiest way to fix the bugs (Score:5, Funny)
Bitching will ensue, and the bugs will get fixed even quicker. Why mess around with all the pre-2.6 stuff, when this is obviously the fastest way to get it all working
Re:Easiest way to fix the bugs (Score:5, Interesting)
And those who made that mistake with 2.4.0 will continue to ignore 2.6 until it's proven itself stable and not find the bugs anyway.
(I'm not one of them, but I have time to spend
on following dev releases. Not everybody does).
I'm not a fan of the "it compiles, ship it! and we'll fix it in a service pack" mentality.
- Muggins the Mad
Re:Easiest way to fix the bugs (Score:5, Interesting)
And I'm not a fan of waiting for beta testing that will never happen before releasing it. It is a thousand times easier to find bugs that have been found. Therefore the method that allows you to find the most bugs in the shortest amount of time is the best method. This is assuming that you are not actually selling the product for a profit. In other words, release the 2.6 kernel because no one important is going to use it until it gets put into a distribution. So there's sort of always a testing period after the release but before most people start using it.
ok, I've managed to completly disagree with myself several times. I guess that means I must be right. Its pretty clear to me that there *isn't* a best solution. So for heaven's sake just do something, it will be better than nothing.
Re:Easiest way to fix the bugs (Score:3, Funny)
Spoken like a true politician!
Re:Easiest way to fix the bugs (Score:3)
So (Score:5, Interesting)
The 2.4 series had this public cloud of wierd problems hanging over it its entire existence. It seems like 2.4 never really seemed "trustworthy", they kept making huge and highly experimental changes and 2.4 seemed just kind of like a work in progress for its entire run. Will 2.6.0 be totally safe to download and run and install in a production environment, or is that going to be kind of a "well thats still sort of experimental be careful"? And if the latter, why the heck aren't they staying in 2.5 until it's ready for production.
Am I just too paranoid, or do you know what i mean?
-- anonymous and terrified
Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)
2.6.0 I think will be a lot more stable than 2.4.0, but I don't think its for a critical environment. Its more to start getting testers on board. The number of people using 2.6 probably increases exponentially with each point release for the first few, so leave the more critical stuff for a while. Do you really need it?
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
As for the eventual stability of 2.4.x, I have an SMP file/print/Web/DHCP/DNS server running in one of the labs that I volunteer to run that has been running 2.4.18 since it was released sometime in late February 2002... it has only had one reboot, to replace a UPS whose battery went dead. It runs 24/7 and has crashed/frozen exactly zero times. Average load is generally above 2-3 during open hours.
That's not bad for a "work in progress" kernel!
Re:So (Score:2, Interesting)
I dunno--I think 2.4 has actually deteriorated throughout its lifetime. For example, for my hardware, 2.4.20 seems to have serious bugs in USB2, while 2.4.19 is working fine. Also, I have encountered numerous compilation problems in different 2.4 kernels with different configuration settings.
It runs 24/7 and has crashed/frozen exactly zero times.
Yes, in my experience, there h
Re:So (Score:2, Informative)
Re:So (Score:4, Informative)
You don't actually need a make dep with the 2.5 kernels. So, we dont actually need no make depend!
Re:So (Score:2)
make mrproper
make oldconfig... (I like to do my patching after I've got a kernel that works)
make dep clean bzImage modules modules_install
I don't think there's anything abstruse about that, but 2.4.20 works fine, while 2.4.21 panicked on boot-up (unable to mount root fs). Haven't had time to go back and work out why this happened, but it really shouldn't.
Re:So (Score:2)
I tried useing kde' nice front-end for config and had simillar experiences. Since I switched back to xconfig, I have had 0 problems.
Re:So (Score:2)
Yes, in my experience, there hasn't been much flakiness in those kernels--if you manage to find one that configures correctly, compiles without complaints, and boots up, chances are that it will work well. But if my experience is any guide, that's a big "if".
I know. I'we had the some compile problems also.. The solution is to save your configuration to a file (F.ex. Config-2.4), do a "make mrproper", and then compile the kernel with your saved configuration..("make dep && make clean &&
Re:So (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that the problem is that the number of people who try to use 2.6.0 will be far greater than the number that try 2.5.x. Therefore, the probability that a whole new set of bugs will appear (probably not major ones, but a fair number of minor ones) is quite high, and there's nothing that the kernel developers can really do to prevent this happening. This is even more true than int the past because of the ever-increasing ratio of Linux users to Linux kernel developers.
Re:So (Score:2)
Yeah, but there is also a more systematic approach to testing being done at IBM and OSDL( I would guess this includes some fence sitters suh as HP). The amount of on-going generalized testing is much improved over what 1-2 years ago was. In fact, I suspect that this kernel will be the most stabile release that we have had for some time.
Re:So (Score:4, Interesting)
I started running the 2.4 kernel on some production boxes around 2.4.6 and never had a problem.
Yes there will be some problems with the code, but unless you use every single feature in the kernel, chances are it will not bite you... I can't remember the last time I had a kernel panic (besides me mis-compiling modules) on a running box. Probably not since the 2.0 days for me.
Top 10 New features over 2.4 ....are what? (Score:2)
Re:Top 10 New features over 2.4 ....are what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Top 10 New features over 2.4 ....are what? (Score:5, Informative)
o New i/o scheduler, which seems to improve a lot of people's desktop performance;
o Better scheduler performance under loads with lots of processes;
o Rewritten scheduling and threading code, which, coupled with Ulich Drepper's NTPL library, greatly improves threading performance;
o ALSA for sound, and AGP 3 support;
o Faster and cleaner framebuffer support;
o Faster CD recording that doesn't need ide-scsi;
o Upgrades for NFS (v4), NTFS, and HFS+, as well as merges of JFS and XFS;
o System-level in-kernel profiling support;
o CPU Frequence scaling
o IPSec
More information can be found in Dave Jones' list of things to expect in 2.6 [codemonkey.org.uk]. Personally, I think it's great to see features that benefit both big and small systems.
Re:Top 10 New features over 2.4 ....are what? (Score:4, Insightful)
o Faster CD recording that doesn't need ide-scsi;
It's about goddamn motherfucking time. God the IDE CD running SCSI emulation is the biggest piece of shit I've seen on Linux. I have a box that has run rh 7.2 and now runs rh 9 and the only thing that locks this box up is anything out of the ordinary having to do with the CD-r (such as the pathetic piece of SHIT that GNOME calls CD player software - who made this crap the default desktop in RH? [And yes, I know I can run KDE (in fact I use the CD player kscd from that environment) but having heard how RH mucked around with KDE to 'unify' it with gnome, I'm leery of that]). Last night, that junk locked my machine so solid I couldn't login over the network, the Xserver froze (except for the mouse) and I had to hardware-reset it, fsck all the filesystems on reboot [even though I'm using ext3] and then it spent all fucking night resyncing the raid mirrors.
I love Linux, I've been a fantic about it since 1999, but that ide-scsi was terrible fucking hack.
Re:Top 10 New features over 2.4 ....are what? (Score:2)
Re:Top 10 New features over 2.4 ....are what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Top 10 New features over 2.4 ....are what? (Score:2, Funny)
Well, I've never had any problems with ide-scsi. And I'm not paranoid about Red Hat's KDE patches doing -- whatever the hell you think it will do. Eat your children, maybe? Steal my refrigerator? Yeah. I mean. Calm down?
I steer clear of that whole GNOME/KDE thing. I do most everything from an xterm. CD burning software? cdrecord. CD playing software? cdplay. I use FVWM as my window manager and I don't run any gnome bits, other than the occasional ap
Re:Top 10 New features over 2.4 ....are what? (Score:2)
Have no fear:
xinit
(you know what to do if you have kde2)
Or if you want to run both at the same time, go to a text console and:
xinit
I feel your pain re Gnome. At least the desktop itself and panel don't seem to crash any more. It's getting more useable too, but you need time lapse photog
Re:So (Score:2, Interesting)
If the Amd world view of how to achieve 32 bit without emu on a 64 bit platform are to fly then the adoption of AMD by the server world is essential for Linux in the future. Blindly f
Re:So (Score:2)
For many uses 2.4 was fine from the beginning... The 2.4 VM issues didn't really get sorted out until 2.4.14. After that it was pretty good.
There are still tons of minor glitches with 2.5, but nothing huge like the 2.4 VM. The big problems with 2.5 are the IDE layer and the TTY code.
Re:So (Score:2)
To quantity of such kernerls is equal to the quantity of unsinkable ships.
totally safe does not exist! And who ever sells you such is unserious.
Re:So (Score:2)
steve
Re:So (Score:2)
I'm glad they put in (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm glad they put in (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm glad they put in (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'm glad they put in (Score:3, Funny)
something easier to say (Score:5, Funny)
That's because (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm glad they put in (Score:2)
(Asimov reference)
Don't you hate it when people say.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't you hate it when people say.... (Score:5, Funny)
Mac OS X 10.2? Bah. I run Windows 2000...
Re:Don't you hate it when people say.... (Score:2, Funny)
slow day...
Yeah? well what about (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Yeah? well what about (Score:2, Funny)
We apply a highly sophisticated mathematical theorem named division to compute a ratio.
2000 / 98 == 20.4082
This is SCIENTIFIC PROOF that Windows 2000 is 20.4082 times faster, better, smaller, and stabler than Windows 98!
Order your copy today! [microsoft.com]
Re:Yeah? well what about (Score:2)
Re:Yeah? well what about (Score:4, Funny)
Windows 98 is Windows 4.1 (4.0 was 95)
Windows ME was Windows 4.9....
Windows 2000 was NT 5.0
XP is Windows NT 5.1
Server 2003 is 6.0
Longhorn is ?????
This means that Microsoft is doing WHAT with version numbering???
Re:Don't you hate it when people say.... (Score:2)
Well, my kernel goes to 11 (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Don't you hate it when people say.... (Score:2)
What about C2 -style auditing? (Score:5, Interesting)
New features probably wont get in?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:New features probably wont get in?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:New features probably wont get in?? (Score:5, Informative)
AFAIUI, no major features have been accepted since the Feature Freeze, and from now on, nothing that will majorly alter the code will be accepted. Only bugfixes.
The 2.5.x series could be real cool (Score:3, Informative)
However, the new module handling procedures in the 2.5.x series makes some of my frequently used apps to behave strangely (iptables for example)... even with module-init-tools.
Ah well... as long as there's progress
maintenance mode (Score:5, Informative)
2.4 isn't even in "maintenance" mode yet - it is _the_ stable tree, and its getting new things added to it with each release (slowly, and after being tested in other trees, and RCs). Just recently new ACPI for example.
2.5 is going into "stabalisation" mode, to get it ready enough for 2.6.0 that it won't piss too many people off who try it. 2.5 has been a good cycle and 2.6.0 will be quite stable, but it needs to go through a few 2.6 point releases during which more and more people will start testing it.
Then _2.4_ will go into "maintenance" mode.
A couple notes on hardware (Score:5, Informative)
Those of you who want to use the closed NVidia drivers with 2.5 can find the necessary patches here [minion.de]
2.5.71 also introduced a new native mode driver for synaptics touchpads. You'll need to download the X11 driver [telia.com] and I saw it mentioned that the cvs version of GPM has support if you use that as well.
Re:A couple notes on hardware (Score:2)
I have one of those ergonomic weird looking keyboard with a ysnaptics tp built in and I can not turn off the stupid tap to click crap.
I freaking hate it.
Dependencies? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is there a "the mile long list of things to update before trying to boot 2.5.x" list?
I remember the "fun" of updating 2.2...
Re:Dependencies? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Dependencies? (Score:4, Informative)
The main reason for this change is that there is now a kernel level module loader. This is for various changes, so that drivers will be handled in exactly the same manner whether they are loaded as a module, or included in the main kernel image. This makes a number of problems in driver writing, and a bunch of idiosyncrities just go away. For example, you should be able to load multiple copies of a driver, compiled into the main kernel. Previously, you had to use them as modules to work that trick. This is important in situations like three identical soundcards.
I believe that is the only required (significant and normally needed) chage to userland tools. Other tools will benefit from updating, to support new features, but that's always the case, and not required. Note that the kernel aught to boot without it - just be less useful if you use modules.
It's worth noting that the sound infrasturcture changed from OSS, to primerly ALSA. OSS is still in, but marked DEPRECATED, so at some point over 2.6, you aught to expect to shift to ALSA sound. It aught to be painless - ALSA supports OSS emulation, so you can phase apps through that. I can't think of any other userland level changes for 2.5 (at least, that impact on your average commodity PC desktop / server - If your're using LVM / md stuff, I think that there might be a shift in there).
One fun change is that you shouldn't need to use ide-scsi emulation to drive CD burners anymore (though that'll require updating userland tools). That's a really useful one, particulary for newcomers [0].
[0] Windows actually also does the 'pretend it's a SCSI device' trick too - but hides it a lot better.
Re:Dependencies? (Score:2)
It's worth noting that the sound infrasturcture changed from OSS, to primerly ALSA. OSS is still in, but marked DEPRECATED, so at some point over 2.6, you aught to expect to shift to ALSA sound. It aught to be painless - ALSA supports OSS emulation, so you can phase apps through that.
Hmmm... It sounds like the the bad practices like /dev/audio
cat wow.au >
won't disappear for another period. I was looking forward to default ALSA in 2.6.x but till the programs keep using the old API there is no chanc
Re:Dependencies? (Score:4, Informative)
ASPI is a SCSI interface standard. It stands for SCSI Programing Interface - it's designed so that ASPI complient hardware can all use a single driver, for a specific type of device. If it's using the ASPI code, then it's working a SCSI device - at least in emulation.
A couple of links, to back up that cd burners use ASPI in windows:
http://aspi.radified.com/
http://www.n
Re:Dependencies? (Score:2)
cdrecord supports two different methods of working with ATAPI burners. dev=ATAPI uses a packet writing interface in the cdrom suport (in 2.4.X). However, the program actually uses the sg device (SCSI generic), so yes, it's still thinking it's talking to a SCSI device at some level. However, this is prety damn efficent - there's no full blown SCSI layer in the way. Given that ATAPI is basically SCSI over IDE (hence all the SCSI crap in the first place), this is more or less fine, with on
Hopefully it will be more stable then 2.4x in smp (Score:3, Interesting)
I use to be a big fan of linux but the latest 2.4x came with a bad vm in the so called stable release branch and I heard of dismal uptimes for smp systems with 4 or more processors. Infact Debian still uses the 2.2 kernel by default because of the bugs sorrounding 2.4
I am no longer in IT but if I was I would be more in favor of FreeBSD. I heard 5.0 is alot more scalable then the 4.x branch.
Anyway its reputation for those who are not Linux fanatics on slashdot will be better. Linux 2.0 was rock solid. However the quality has gone down hill recently. Yes Linux 2.4 can scale quite well but in real world uses filesystem corruptions, xinet freezing, and kernel panics happen on smp hardware.
Since Linus now wors at OSDL he can now test these features on high end hardware. Linux is stable on pc class hardware but that is all most kernel hackers have to test the kernel.
Re:Hopefully it will be more stable then 2.4x in s (Score:2, Informative)
Your next paragraph about filesystem corruption, etc is misi
Re:Hopefully it will be more stable then 2.4x in s (Score:2)
Re:Hopefully it will be more stable then 2.4x in s (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hopefully it will be more stable then 2.4x in s (Score:2)
I only have one 4-processer machine, but the 2.4 kernels were wonderful on it. It got 2.4.3 when 2.4.3 was hot off of the presses, then ran without reboot or any glitch until it was shut down last month for hardware upgrades. At that point, I put 2.4.21 on it just for fun. Uptime was something like 1.5 years at that point. 2.4.3 is timestamped over 2 years ago, so it could be as long as that.
steve
About scalability & stability (Score:3)
Regardless, I've had an uptime of 214 days with Linux on a 2-CPU Pentium 4, with a stock RedHat 2.4.18 kernel. The reason it went down was because the computer had to be moved from one location to another ...
Yes, I've noticed instability on the stable kernel - but that happened mostly with my own kernel builds. That is why we have distros - let them heavily test, use their kernels *and* make your purchasing decisions based on their hardware compatibility lis
Just did it. 2.2 (Score:2)
Debian cd install:
linux (2.2)
bf24 (2.4)
vanilla (2.2 vanilla)
ramdisk0 (disk install 2.2)
Not to say that there's anything wrong with the 2.4 kernel though, often enough it's the only thing I can get certain hardware drivers under, and 2.2 has its issues too. I've noticed that one of our servers was choking on 2.4 (tape system amongst other stuff), whilst another really had issues with stuff in the 2.2 tree.
Re:Hopefully it will be more stable than 2.4x in s (Score:5, Interesting)
I do believe that much of the non-scaling of Linux past 4 CPU's is, to some extent, actually the fault of the hardware, as the great majority of multiprocesser hardware has bottlenecks that impeded linear scaling.
As a simple example, take a look at the dual P4 Xeons on the 533 MHz bus. Sounds spiffy, right? Well, you're splitting the 533 FSB and memory busses between both processers, giving each one an effective *266 MHz* when under load. Seeing as how even the slowest single-proc P4 has a 400 MHz FSB, you can see off of the bat that you're hitting bottlenecks!
Look at the AthlonMP series: Each processer has it's own independent bus! However, the only available motherboards have a single-channel, 266 MHz memory architecture. That gives each processer only 133 MHz effective memory bus under load. The simple addition of a dual-channel memory controller (like the one on the NForce boards) would give the AthlonMP's a real shot in the arm.
Now, it may seem like I'm just talking about low-end multiprocesser machines, but here's another example: Even on some of the higher-end machines, there are restrictive bottlenecks. By naming names, I'll only start a flame-war with the zeolots, but suffice it to say that there are $35,000 "high-end" servers that have *less* total memory bandwidth than that $3,000 dual P4 Xeon. That is pretty pathetic!
It's pretty easy to see why someone who didn't realize that could plop $35,000 on a 4-way, big-name machine that had less memory bandwidth than a $3,000 dual P4 machine, see that under load both of them performed similarly, and say "Well, Linux must not scale well."
To make matters worse, the kind of applications that are run on multi-CPU machines tend to be things like RDBMS', which do not lend themselves well to clustering. Here's the catch: Those types of applications tend to be the most memory-demanding. So, take a single P4 with a 533 MHz bus, and install your RDBMS on it. Take a dual P4 Xeon with a 533 MHz bus, and try the RDBMS. You're certainly not going to scale linearly, but that's because you still haven't improved the memory bandwidth.
steve
Saving time (Score:5, Funny)
How to help test the kernel (Score:5, Informative)
I am looking for translations into other languages for all my Linux Quality Database articles [sunsite.dk] - there are other articles on web application quality and C++ programming, and more will be posted from time to time.
They are all under the GNU Free Documentation License, but for reasons explained in Which License for Free Documentation? [advogato.org] I am planning to change the license soon to another one.
Re:How to help test the kernel (Score:2)
1: Additional requirements to run kernel 2.6 above and beyond what ships in current distributions, like modutils.
2: Gotchas that will show up using lilo/grub to switch between 2.4.x and 2.6.x, and how to work around them.
Stuff like this needs
Maybe if I'd written it earlier... (Score:5, Insightful)
I protested the release of 2.4, saying its inclusion in distros would cause users to unknowingly run a poor quality kernel, but Linus said the reason he wanted it released was so that it would get more widespread testing.
The "stable" branch of the kernel is perhaps misnamed. Linus gets to release a new kernel whenever he wants, and I imagine he does some testing, but I don't think he puts a stable release through any kind of rigourous qualification, I think it's more like when the complaints about his pre- versions die down a little.
I know it's common for Linus to release stable kernels that are actually quite broken on some non-x86 architectures. People who run Linux on PowerPC use a branch that's extensively patched from Linus' releases.
Both the 2.4 and 2.2 kernels went through a number of releases before they were really usable. I think the reason 2.2 became reliable was that it was smaller and simpler, and fewer people were working on it.
I'm pretty sure a good part of the reason behind the establishment of the Open Source Development Lab [osdl.org] and their hiring of prominent kernel developers like Linus and Andrew Morton is to make sure that 2.6 actually does turn out to be enterprise quality. IBM is a big backer of OSDL, and I don't think they want the billion dollar investment in Linux in general to go to waste.
In my day... (Score:5, Funny)
Bah.whimper snapper..Re:In my day... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:In my day... (Score:3, Funny)
LKML confirm Linux is Dying! (Score:5, Funny)
Linus was quoted as saying this will be "the last kernel".
This announcement, of course, has the same high validity as the claim that *BSD is dying.
Time for some 2.6-pre Linux Hosting... (Score:3, Interesting)
I host a bunch of VPSs based on Jeff Dike's UML (User Mode Linux [sf.net]) project.
One (of the many) cool things UML allows is for you to try out new kernels without having to dedicate a real box to it. Even if you're only dedicating the box to it between kernel swap reboots. Especially if you're not sure if the new kernel will corrupt your precious partitions.
The UML 'host' server can continue to run whatever stable 2.4 kernel you need (in my case 2.4.21).
You SSH from your 'host' server into your hosted UML kernel. Play around, test reliability, fiddle with new features, regression test your apps.
So anyway, I'm off to grab the new kernel and have a play. Maybe even see if there are any crazies out there who want hosting with the 2.5/2.6-pre kernel.
- Peter
RimuHosting - Linux VPS Hosting [rimuhosting.com]
Hardware optimisation will be the telling factor. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the Amd world view of how to achieve 32 bit without emu on a 64 bit platform are to fly then the adoption of AMD by the server world is essential for Linux in the future. Blindly following the Intel/MS lead may lead to kaos. The same as blindly imitating Microsofts functions by reverse engineering, is for programmers.
The office desktop lock of MS is not the route that Linux should take, the applied advanced scientific computing and clustering is the best route. When a great scientific workstation can be had for the price of a Linux install on a 64 bit AMD system the business computing world will finally start to wake up and take notice.
Re:Hardware optimisation will be the telling facto (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, the Linux kernel is and will be the most important readily available high performance computing platform. I cannot imagine a design decision with more than temporary character that will slow down the kernel. Through constant improvement it will lead on all 64bit platforms, Dec Alpha, PowerPC, IA-64 and x86-64. We all know, in the long run, open source isn't beatable in improvement. The kernel is already far on the right side of that curve.
Now, should Linux developers at large focus on scientific computing, or the desktop, on both? Actually this is a "no-question". The development force of open source will always distribute itself along its own best interests, not because of what anybody told them. Till now the technical gurus of programming turned the core of the GNU/Linux OS in what it is, but the evergrowing developer community is attracting more and more apps developers (they are simply more readily available). So while the kernel project is readily scaling to bigger and bigger feats, the app world will still aim for the desktop, the poweruser's desktop first. Simply because there are many people that want to provide apps and simply will do. This will not impair kernel development in any way, and anyhow those people have no different needs from the kernel as the scientists have: stable, efficient, robust.
Since the POSIX and other standards strongly decoupled OS internals from the apps developers (what's going on behind the scenes is no business of the apps developer) we have the power to do it both, in parallel, with no friction.
Re:Hardware optimisation will be the telling facto (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes you are right on target as to why Linux is doing great things. Not releasing 2.6 stable too soon is one of them. The problem is that the business world does not appreciate the reasons why .
My wife trains new users for an environment that is typical.
Their server is MS based because of the need to run MS office. The real power apps are served by a Linux server for the medical image data files.
FINALLY (Score:5, Interesting)
Check out: http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/post-halloween-2.5.t
Now, when someone does make xconfig it uses the qt libraries. There is also a make gconfig for all you gnome people. While I like the advancement, it's annoying that even at the deepest level, the kenel, people are forced to repeat functuality for different libraries. While I love the choice, it is just annoying that we so much redundency for these libraries. It seems that programmers are programming more for the libraries than they are for the users. Unfortunitly, I can't think of a way to solve this.
However, it does suck for anyone who uses another window manager and doesn't have/want qt or gnome. I guess they have to live with ncurses.
Re:FINALLY (Score:4, Informative)
You can see the screenshot here [pg.gda.pl].
Re:FINALLY (Score:2)
".config"uring 2.5.75 (Score:2, Interesting)
Man some people can bitch about nothing (Score:3, Interesting)
So the vm stuff was ripped out half-way through. Did it cause any problems for end users? I didn't notice. If anyone is running a Linux box that is under so much load that they did notice, then maybe they should have upgraded their hardware. It gives me images of someone fanging their VW beetle down the road at 180km/h and complaining that the new suspension seems a little rougher than the old one.
I've read some examples of 'my sis motherboard craps out when I do this' or 'my oh-so-cheap raid controller doesn't like it when the kernel does this'. These are drivers people! They can't be considered a core part of the kernel. You can't brand a kernel unstable because someone's obscure, 5-year old POS hardware's drivers haven't been updated in years. Buy some real hardware. See above point. I challenge anyone with regular ( ie I can walk down to the local computer store and buy one because it's in production and regular use now ) hardware to tell me what problem they've had with any 2.4 kernel.
Funny thing is that most people bitching about the supposed instability of early 2.4 and 2.6 kernels most likely upgraded to them as soon as they came out ( just like me ) and bragged to all their Windows-using friends about how stable and fast etc their new kernel is. It's only on Slashdot where it's cool to whinge about how people can break kernel-x just by xxxxxx that they change their tune. And how many of the complainants actually submitted a bug report? MMMmmm?
Re:Jiffies in 2.5/2.6 (Score:2)
no troll, i really don't know.
Re:Jiffies in 2.5/2.6 (Score:5, Informative)
In other Engineering and science diciplines there are other definitions of "jiffy" [catb.org].
In English, it means "a short amount of time" as in "I'll do it in a jiffy".
Re:Jiffies in 2.5/2.6 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Jiffies in 2.5/2.6 (Score:2)
Damn, the Linux kernal wakes up and reschedules things more times per second than my first computer could do operations per second.
(TRS-80 if you're curious)
Re:Jiffies in 2.5/2.6 (Score:2)
A jiffy is a quick quicky.
Re:Yes, but does it run Linux? (Score:3, Informative)
Brings new light to "Yes, it runs Linux."
Re:distros with 2.5 ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Party pooper (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Party pooper (Score:2)
Wait until you buy some cutting-edge hardware that doesn't yet have full kernel support, *then* see how excited you get about a new release! ; )
steve
Re:Party pooper (Score:2)
Re:How sad (Score:3, Informative)
Linus is 'giving up' on 2.5 because he wants to make that branch of the source tree stable. Not because it's a flaming lump of shit.
Then again, I've probably just been trolled. But FYI for those people who believe him.
Re:Debian compatibility? (Score:4, Informative)
apt-get install module-init-tools
Download new kernel, configure, compile, install and reboot, and try do it all with kernel-package....
Worked perfectly for me (TM), but you may have to do some tweeking if you want some other stuff (like nvidia-drivers).
Re:linux problem (Score:2)
Although, I guess from the number of responses (and the mod point) it still seems to work.