Linux 2.6.26 Out 288
diegocgteleline.es writes "After three months, Linux 2.6.26 has been released. It adds support for read-only bind mounts, x86 PAT (Page Attribute Tables), PCI Express ASPM (Active State Power Management), ports of KVM to IA64, S390 and PPC, other KVM improvements including basic paravirtualization support, preliminary support of the future 802.11s wireless mesh standard, much improved webcam support thanks to a driver for UVC devices, a built-in memory tester, a kernel debugger, BDI statistics and parameters exposure in /sys/class/bdi, a new /proc/PID/mountinfo file for more accurate information about mounts, per-process securebits, device white-list for containers users, support for the OLPC, some new drivers and many small improvements. Here is the full list of changes."
Clever new tools for kernel config (Score:5, Insightful)
Real writeable NTFS? (Score:2, Insightful)
OK, 2.6.26 is out, and kudos for all the good work. But where is a truly writeable NTFS? Many larger USB drives are shipping with this pre-installed, so true write support is needed in the kernel.
AFAIK, current kernel "write" support does not including creating files or directors (presumably just modifying/appending to existing files).
I've tried ntfsprogs, but not got it to compile x86_64.
Re:802.11s can run on generic WLAN hardware? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Real writeable NTFS? (Score:1, Insightful)
The in kernel support for ntfs is an ancient relic. Use fuse and ntfs-3g instead. Fedora, Mandriva and Ubuntu even have it preinstalled.
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Intelfb still broke (Score:4, Insightful)
They have still not enabled mode switching in the intelfb driver on laptops
Do any desktops really need a fb, or is it only so that there can be pretty pictures during boot, before [xkg]dm starts?
Good point, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
...if your friend/colleague/whatever wants to use an NTFS-formatted drive on your computer, he might be a little unhappy if you reformat it.
I put NTFS support on my Linux computers and Ext2/Ext3 support [fs-driver.org] (and a proper formatting tool) on my Windows computers. It's called interoperability.
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (Score:3, Insightful)
The entire operating system is GNU/Linux - [...]
Because libc+shellutils+gcc is so much more relevant than X, KDE/e17/etc, the package manager, ...
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire operating system is GNU/Linux -
No, I think the entire operating system is GNU/Linux/X/Mozilla/QT/GTK/*insert favorite WM*/whatever else. If you refer to the entire OS as GNU/Linux, you are neglecting other key parts of the OS. If you call Windows NT, just NT there is no problems with it, the various divisions of MS don't call it Windows/DOS/NT do they? Linux is the name of the kernel, NT is the name of another kernel, yet I see both being referred to as Linux or NT, the difference is MS isn't always correcting you.
Re:Clever new tools for kernel config (Score:4, Insightful)
um... you have a distro that doesn't hotplug all the necessary modules for you?
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe your FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc are vaguely equivalent to Debian/Fedora/etc.
I'm not sure where exactly you're going with that
What he(?) means is that just as {Free,Net,Open}BSD are complete operating systems, so are Linux distros like Debian, Fedora, etc.
Re:Kernel debugger considered harmful by Linus (Score:2, Insightful)
I love how people with anti-debugger attitudes always seem to rely instead on printfs. as if getting the exact same info from printfs is somehow more noble than from a debugger.
they're both tools. it's up to the developer to be intelligent and an intelligent developer will use the tools that help them achieve the job best. in some cases that's a debugger, in other cases it's debug printfs and logfiles
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is Linux kernel 2.6.26 == Linux 2.6.26 ? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Intelfb still broke (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually useful if you, for some reason, need to drop to a text console and do something there (like restarting a firefox that started running amok an hour ago and now has all the system resources taken). I like my console to use the exact resolution of the laptop screen so that there are no weird pixels and, as a nice plus, the screen can fit a lot more text.
Having a 900x1024 screen and a text mode that's about 480x640 pixels and 24x80 is kind of ugly.
Re:Ummm...Karma to Burn. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, you're going to get flamed, and for good reason. Just how easy do you think it is to support chipsets from manufacturers who supply no documentation, who load their firmware from their drivers, and who threaten to sue anyone who tries to do it on their own?
And so, yeah, maybe YOU should BECOME a developer.
Re:Ummm...Karma to Burn. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, let's try a more constructive approach.
``How about getting b,g,a working for standard (intel, broadcom, atheros) chipsets first.''
I'm sure it's being worked on. As for that happening _first_, I don't think that's a really good idea. To you, support for these chipsets may be very important, so important that it makes you feel bad if any features have been added, without adding supports for said chipsets, first. To others, these chipsets may not be so important. Those people would rather have other features added first. With the large number of people who are working on Linux, a lot of things can be worked on at the same time - but we can't hope to please everyone.
As for support for your chipsets - experience shows they will probably be supported someday, but it can take a long time. Exactly how long usually depends how cooperative the manufacturer of the chipset is, and how similar the chipset is to chipsets already supported. Both of these are under control of the manufacturer, so we are largely dependent on them.
``The same reason I get trolled and flamed, is the same reason that LINUX is never going to be more than a "hobby OS"''
I agree with you that flaming you isn't an appropriate response to your original post, which is clearly rooted in frustration. On the other hand, your attitude isn't exactly helpful, either. You complain about developers not supporting your favorite features - features that are probably hard for them to implement, because they are dependent on others who aren't cooperating - and tell them they should have supported your features instead of the many great features they did implement. Then you go on to claim - insultingly - that "LINUX is never going to be more than a \"hobby OS\"", which is clearly disingenious. Linux is being used professionally in many places. People are selling operating systems based on it, and devices with Linux on them. Clearly, it's already more than a hobby OS.
All in all, your complaint about lack of support for common network hardware is well-taken, and probably being worked on. It will take time, of course. Would you really have all other development on Linux halt while the drivers for your chipsets are developed? I don't think that would be wise. I understand (and share) your frustration, but I think the best course of action is:
1. Leave the developers to work on what they want to work on (possibly guided by suggestions from users)
2. For WLAN, choose chipsets that _are_ supported, and preferably with specifications available from the manufacturer. Support the manufacturers that support freedom of choice, not those that would lock you into proprietary software.
3. Express your frustration with the situation, but refrain from insulting people and using strong language. There's just no call for that.