2.6.13 Linux Kernel Released

LynuxFre@k writes "Linux Torvalds announced the release of the 2.6.13 Linux kernel. He noted that there was a major change to the x86 PCI code, and that while all bugs from the change were believed to be found during the release candidate phase, it's possible that some devices may have problems. From this release on, it is intended that major changes only be merged into the kernel within two weeks after a major release. The rest of the time will be spent fixing bugs, with the goal of both increasing overall stability and decreasing the amount of time between major releases. Download the latest Linux kernel from a kernel.org mirror."

Coral

[Saiyine]

This is a cool use for the Coral Cache, mirroring files this big: the kernel [nyud.net].


--
Dreamhost [dreamhost.com] superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

Re:Coral

[croddy]

dude, there's no need to stick kernel.org behind the (comparatively sluggish) coral cache.

it's kernel.org. they mirror [kernel.org] other people's stuff.

Devfs removed

[Saiyine]

As they say in osnews [osnews.com], devfs [csiro.au] seems to have been removed from the kernel.

--
Dreamhost [dreamhost.com] superb hosting.
Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Random sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

2.6 a year and a half old but...

[SuperBanana]

I wish Linus would arrive at a policy and just stick with it instead of all these gyrations of "we'll use this method from now on...no wait...we'll use this one from now on...and by the way I want everyone to switch revision control systems now...oh wait...sigh.

This PCI code rewrite doesn't bother me as much as some of the recent 2.6 releases including new drivers for obscure proprietary hardware.

A large number of organizations (as well as Debian Stable and Redhat) still use 2.4. It's pretty pathetic. 2.6 was released in December of 2003, over a year and a half ago. It offers significant performance advantages over 2.4 in many areas. Maybe instead of spending time switching policies, kernel developers should be consulting with end-users (note: this does not mean just/predominantly IBM and the other big fish. It means people like US, too) to find out why we're not using 2.6. Aside from security patches, any effort on 2.4 development/maintenance needs to stop. It's a brain drain, and active maintenance is encouraging people to be lazy in upgrading (and that's probably part of the issue).

Right now 2.6 is a lame-duck kernel, and if they keep trudging on and release the next stable without looking at why 2.6 isn't the defacto kernel of choice today, Linux will be rather fubar'd.

Re:Hey! It's not Linux Torvalds...

[cybersaga]

... it's GNU/Linux Torvalds!

No it's not. We're talking about the kernel.

Re:kernel bug fixes

[GigsVT]

When I can't find a stable kernel for one of my servers, it's a serious problem.

It's been hard to get long uptimes with 2.6... the network drivers are leaky/crash, SCSI support sucks.

It's just not been very hot.

Summary of new features

[makomk]

There's a good summary of the new features [lwn.net] over at LWN. Among other things, inotify has finally been merged in - about time! I wonder when Gentoo will add the new version to Portage, and if I'll dare to upgrade?

Re:Coral

[LnxAddct]

You're kidding right? A kernel release like this doesn't even make kernel.org break a sweat. Read this [kerneltrap.org]. The only time they ever even start to see some strain on their bandwidth is with a new release of Fedora, because they are a mirror for it (both of their gigabit links become saturated). For kernel releases though, they say that their bandwidth stays pretty normal at around 150Mbps to 200Mbps.
Regrds,
Steve

Linux DOES has a stable ABI

[diegocgteleline.es]

Linux DOES has a stable ABI, this is, the syscall interface. It hasn't been changed in years...I know people who is running binaries compiled for linux 1.0 in 2.6 kernels. If your app breaks or works bad when changing the kernel version (ej: openoffice when the semantics of yield() where changed in 2.5) is probably because your app was broken in first place. Now, regression and bugs can happen too, but those aren't on purpose

Maybe you mean the internal kernel API - which affects to modules, NVIDIA & friends etc. That API is unstable on purpose, as explained here: http://kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds /linux-2.6.git;a=blob;h=f39c9d714db3d6bf2f6440d2f6 cf9353057eeae5;hb=02b3e4e2d71b6058ec11cc01c72ac651 eb3ded2b;f=Documentation/stable_api_nonsense.txt [kernel.org]

Or maybe you mean "compatibility" WRT gtk & friends, if GTK breaks compatibily thats their broblem

Re:Devfs removed

[diegocgteleline.es]

not that many people is going to notice it - devfs wasn't really used in most of mainstream distros except 2 or 3. In some cases like Mandrake, they used it and then switched back.

And it's not a surprise, linux's devfs implementation was broken from start, and the idea behind devfs isn't a relly good one. Fortunately, udev is much better...

Re:2.6 a year and a half old but...

[JonJ]

A large number of organizations (as well as Debian Stable and Redhat) still use 2.4. It's pretty pathetic. Debian provides both a 2.6 and a 2.4 kernel when you install debian stable, if you don't like it, use another distro. RHEL 3 was released quite some time ago, and the 2.4 kernel that was provided was probably heavy patched, since RedHat has quite a number of kernel hackers employed. RHEL 4 features a 2.6 kernel. If the only examples you could come up with of distros still using the 2.4 kernel, I'd say pretty much every distro uses 2.6. SUSE does, Mandrake does, Slackware has it as an option, debian has the option, Ubuntu uses 2.6, and so on.

Re:2.6 a year and a half old but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but that's just wrong. There isn't a single distribution (that matters, anyway) whose primary kernel is 2.4, now-a-days. You're talking out of your ass on this one.

RedHat has been on 2.6 since Fedora Core 2, which was launched in April of 2004 -- about 4 and a half months after 2.6.0 shipped. Debian offers both a 2.6 kernel and a 2.4 kernel, but it comes as no surprise they support 2.4 still -- they're probably the only mainstream distro that has never shipped X.org in any officially released product. Debian is very conservative about its released products, so they tend to be a year or two behind others, in what concerns versions.

All other large distros switched to 2.6 a /long/ time ago -- SuSE, Mandrake, whatever.

Re:How to tell if you are a linux fanatic.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mind being trollbait, for this is not feeding the trolls; this is making the rest of the world see the troll feeding in a zoo.

So here's to the trolls.

1. You rejuvenate and dance when you hear a windows flaw exposed, but you conveniently ignore the thousands of security flaws exposed in linux.

We fix them too. We don't sit on our asses warming the chairs and overload the cooling. Microsoft takes ages to come out with an unpleasant fix, sometimes ONLY after a major outbreak. Go figure.

2. You yell loudly TROLL! at any person's post or at any person you see posting facts that you do not want to hear about your oh so cool linux.

You pour millions into a "Get the facts", fund "independent" studies with "unbiased" results, all the time lying through your teeth. We atleast have *FUN* calling you a troll, while you sit around paying your lawyer crowd. You throw the money, we get to crack the joke. Understandably, you're the one who's pissed off.

3. You know it's a classic case of penis envy, you don't have all the support, software and hardware available for linux and you have to let that anger out somewhere, but you don't have the brains to admit it.

Not everyone has the clout to SUCCESSFULLY support an installation. We help over mailing lists and stuff, you rip your paying customers for a slimy product. It shows.

Winmodems (eg.), etc. are pieces of specifity made for interoperating with specifics. Make more general hardware, without perverting standards, and your hardware will work. You will find people using Microsoft keyboards with Linux; for the reason that it doesn't suck as much as your crappy OS, and dont have to upgrade to a new keyboard after every three years.

4. You hate windows, hate Microsoft, but race to emulate windows, have programs to run office from within linux, and spend a $300 on a Windows emulator, only Windows fools.

You suffer from being a control freak; you cannot accept the fact that some people have to build stuff that serves to glue your crap into the rest of the world. If youre pissed off about someone ELSE making your stuff work with other stuff, you have an attitude problem. Fix it, look at and accept the reality, and THEN let your gob pour forth its inane ramblings.

5. You cannot admit that you don't have professional usage of Linux outside server markets.

You don't even have the PROFESSIONAL guts to admit your lock on the OEMs. If it wasnt for your nutcracker at their testicles, you'd be nowhere, and you are where you are cause you pay Congress to hold that nutcracker for you.

We admit that we do nothing of the above sort, and Linux's market share is built on goodwill, performance, and sheer superiority. We have cut into your market, and you're shit scared of it.

6. You cannot admit that most of the joe user out there when told that there is linux will respond, what is that?

Fix your senses, then your English. That doesn't make any sense at all. This is what happens when you have to do "Innovative(tm)" Feature Fillers.

7. You cannot admit that there is no professional printing capabilities in linux.

If "Professional", coming from the horses' mouth, means "insecure by default" and needs a "get the facts" push for shoving down closed throats, then I, personally, care to admit that printing in Linux works satisfactorily to suit my needs. I think most people feel so too.

8. You cannot admit that you are a masochist (otherwise why would someone spend hours playing with scripts,
and recompiling programs that are available for Windows?)

If thats the only language you will ever understand, here's a fitting reply for your like and brotherhood:

Doing Windows is S&M, actually. Install (fuck the computer up), 3 months and your computer is a wet soggy noodle, (get fucked by it). Then again, the next time around, we have DRM giving it to you up the other end of your digestiv

Re:More kernel crashes as of late?

[hackstraw]

Are these crashes repeatable or do they have any kind of similarity?

I've been using Linux since 0.9x, and its been very stable for me over the years with a few exceptions that were experienced by other people as well.

My first assumption when I have a seemingly random kernel crash with no meaningful data from the OOPs or other messages is that there is a problem with my hardware.

For me, the Linux kernel is more robust than electrical power or hardware.

YMMV.

Re:kernel bug fixes

[10Ghz]

I care about the results, and so far the 2.6 tree has produced a grand total of one kernel that actually works for me (2.6.11). And the obvious cause, rightly or wrongly, seems to be Linus messing around with the development process.

if you have a kernel that work, why upgrade? And why use the vanilla-kernels at all? Vendor-kernels are the ones that are considered stable these days. And there IS a "stable"-branch of the kernel (the 2.6.x.y).

believe in experimentation but the kernel is such an important project that a bit more conservatism is called for.

In that case you should't be using bleeding-edge kernels, stick to the vendor-kernels. I mean, we are being conservative here?

Re:2.6 a year and a half old but...

[diegocgteleline.es]

A large number of organizations (as well as Debian Stable and Redhat) still use 2.4.

Debian didn't care about switching to 2.6 because that would have delayed sarge even more...we all know debian. Redhat Advanced Server 4.0 uses 2.6 not 2.4 [google.com], suse's versions for servers too, so what is your point?

As far as I know, except debian there's no major distro using 2.4 as default kernel.

Right now 2.6 is a lame-duck kernel

Wrong. Ubuntu, redhat, fedora, mandriva, suse, gentoo, knoopix, all of them use 2.6. I don't know where you got that impression, looking at current distros it's pretty clear 2.6 is the preffered kernel version for most of people.

Re:So when do I get my....

[coolGuyZak]

Well... I'm not sure about SuSE, but I know that RedHat and Mandriva both support such a device. It rests, safe and serene, nestled in its loving system tray. When updates are available, it changes from its tender green manner into a somewhat irritated orange. When critical updates are available, it becomes really noticable... a form of colicky red.

When it comes to community distributions... they may handle things differently. But they can afford to... as they are the true hobbyist form of Linux. (Well, except for K/Ubuntu)

Overall, though... The astroturfing/trolling was a refreshing experience. Nice to see that you can still bring up the oldies-but-goodies (no matter how false) of linux fix-its. As a matter of fact, you should be heralded as the paragon of all members on the site. I propose a petition! Let everyone who wants to assign Mr PorchPuppy a UID of 2^32 speak now, as it is surely his proper place amongst /.ers.

I think I've said enough though. Have a nice day.

Re:Obligatory Gentoo post...

[Just Some Guy]

So:

1. Copy your /boot/config-2.6.12-gentoo-r9 to /usr/src/linux/.config
2. Run cd /usr/src/linux; make oldconfig and answer the questions.
3. Spend 20 minute compiling the new kernel.

There! You're all done for another few months, or until you feel the need to upgrade again.

Re:Devfs removed

[Anonymous Coward]

not that many people is going to notice it - devfs wasn't really used in most of mainstream distros except 2 or 3. In some cases like Mandrake, they used it and then switched back.

Gentoo used to rely on devfs [gentoo.org] but Gentoo users running the 2.6 kernel should switch to udev [gentoo.org].

Re:Devfs removed

[iabervon]

Seems is the right word; the only thing removed at this point is the option to enable it. The idea is to get the attention of people who are still using it but haven't noticed, because things continued to work with old config files.

Re:An Unstable Linux

[DarkDigger]

You can already run X as non-root. Just don't start X at boot-up time. Then when you're computer finishes booting, login at the console, then type 'startx' and then inside of an xterm window, start up your favorite window manager. You now have X running under your username instead of root.

There is however a security risk (to you, not the system) of running X as yourself, which is described here:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/fluxbox-config.xml [gentoo.org]
Read the section entitled 'Preparing X11'

Re:Sorry

[EngMedic]

lest we forget, Weta does all their video processing on massive linux clusters. I'd consider Lord of the Rings to be a pretty "professional video editing" example, wouldn't you?