Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Upgrades Linux

Linux 3.9 Released 112

Posted by samzenpus
from the check-it-out dept.
hypnosec writes "After a week's delay Linux 3.9 has finally been made available by Linus Torvalds. Last week Torvalds released the rc8 stating that he wasn't 'comfy' releasing the final version yet and that 'another week won't hurt.' Torvalds noted in this week's announcement that last week had been very quiet as there were not many commits and the ones which were there were 'really tiny' so he went ahead with the release of Linux 3.9."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux 3.9 Released

Comments Filter:
  • Interesting but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hcs_$reboot (1536101) on Monday April 29, 2013 @07:24AM (#43579621)
    it's not in TFS, not in TFA... what's new in 3.9?
  • by Viol8 (599362) on Monday April 29, 2013 @07:26AM (#43579639)

    You have no real idea unless you read the release notes in depth whether 3.8 to 3.9 is a big change or just a bunch of relatively small incremental changes and bug fixes and Linus just fancied upping the minor version number.

    • by jones_supa (887896) on Monday April 29, 2013 @07:56AM (#43579775)
      IMO just like Photoshop or Office, Linux kernel has been "ready" for a long time already. So every release can be just accounted to be "a little bit more of the same", some bug fixes, an odd device driver or the filesystem of the month. No big changes, you just get the latest refresh.
      • by DarkOx (621550)

        Really - I have felt the whole 3.x.x line has added lots of interesting new features with each second decimal point release. I guess some btrfs stuff might fall under filesystem of the week. But if you do any prototyping or visualization with Linux containers and the like btrfs improvements have been pretty interesting; as has the container specific stuff like kernel namespace enhancements.

        Honestly I think there have been more interesting developments along the way in 3.x than there were from 2.4 -> 2.

        • by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Monday April 29, 2013 @10:10AM (#43580983) Homepage Journal

          Honestly I think there have been more interesting developments along the way in 3.x than there were from 2.4 -> 2.6.

          I totally agree, but it's also fair to say that the efforts towards correctness from 2.4 to 2.6 have enabled the feature work happening in 3.x. I was just reading through the Xen commit about the feature to hot-plug new memory and CPU devices, and it's really so dependent on linux being able to say, "oh, you have a new memory module? OK, fine." which wasn't always the case.

          And now for the flame-inducing observation: I think that through much of the 2000's, the BSD folks had a more mature and correct operating system to build on and that allowed them to add new features (e.g. pf, jails, zfs, dtrace) in an easier and faster way and we greatly benefited from that during that time period. Sure, linux had more drivers, but there was a fair bit of ugly kernel code to be faced. As of some point in the past couple years, linux has caught up, and now most of the really interesting new stuff (e.g. user namespaces) is probably going to be on linux, as that's where the momentum is. It'll probably be another three years before this becomes really obvious. Certainly there are still parts of linux with ugliness that need some TLC - I'm just talking about an inflection point, not an endpoint.

        • by ArsonSmith (13997)

          What is meant by "filesystem of the week"? Linux started out with ext but dropped fairly quickly and never really was used by many. There was then ext2->ext3&ReiserFS->ext4 now possibly btrfs. For over 20 years there have been 4 to 5 core filesystems. That'd be the filesystem of the half decade, not week. Sure there are a lot of special case filesystems and a few major ones ported from other systems, but the core actual base filesystems has been very small and linear.

      • If the Linux kernel has been "ready" so long, then why are there so many people on places like Neowin who give very intricate and detailed explanations for why the Windows kernel is so superior and modern and end up labeling the Linux kernel as an old, tired and poor design not suited for modern requirements?

        Slashdot is full of zealots too, even if Neowin's full of the opposite type. I don't know what to think!

    • Does it really matter that much to you whether its 3.9 or 3.8.1.24.96?

      The number is incrementing at the same rate it used to, they just got rid of the stupid digit in the middle which ceased having any meaning years ago. Linux has been using the third digit as "minor" revision for years now, and they no longer do even-odd versioning with the second digit.

      Seriously, everyone with a hangup about version numbers, get over yourself.

  • 3.9 includes (Score:5, Informative)

    by Chrisq (894406) on Monday April 29, 2013 @07:30AM (#43579661)
    Among other things [h-online.com] 3.9 includes experimental kernel-level Raid 5 and 6, caching slow of storage devices by fast ones, support for more graphics cards and audio devices, as well as improved power management.
    • Re:3.9 includes (Score:5, Informative)

      by danbob999 (2490674) on Monday April 29, 2013 @07:44AM (#43579725)

      Linux already had kernel-level Raid 5 and 6. It is usable with mdadm. The new feature is that BTRFS, a filesystem, now supports Raid 5 and 6 without using the software-raid layer in the kernel.

      • by Chrisq (894406)
        Thanks, I hadn't picked up on that
      • BTRFS, a filesystem, now supports Raid 5 and 6 without using the software-raid layer in the kernel

        [link to the "rampant-layering-violations" rant about ZFS from several years ago]...

        • [link to the "rampant-layering-violations" rant about ZFS from several years ago]

          [innocent observation that blind obedience to authority is seldom a positive trait]

          [nonchalant lean against the "Godwin: next 3 posts" sign]

          • haha, exactly (I've been running ZFS ever since).

            • I've always been skeptical of ZFS on Linux because it's not in the kernel tree, but now that btrfs has RAID 5 and 6 emulation I'm considering moving my big file shares volume from from XFS on dmraid to btrfs raid6.

              Either way, there are some good reasons for breaking the filesystem/block layer barrier...

              • I've always been skeptical of ZFS on Linux because it's not in the kernel tree

                If only Oracle would relicense... but you might want to know that one of the national labs runs its entire compute facility on it.

                but now that btrfs has RAID 5 and 6 emulation I'm considering moving my big file shares volume from from XFS on dmraid to btrfs raid6.

                yeah, just make sure you know about all the current btrfs gotchas before you do. I was surprised by all the corner cases and went back to ext4 on my non-ZFS workstation.

    • I thought we generally point to Kernel Newbies: http://kernelnewbies.org/Linux_3.9 [kernelnewbies.org]

      Never heard of H Online. Is this another site we're using now?

      • Gotta say, SSD caching in the device mapper sounds pretty interesting.

        Can't wait until the mainstream distributions pick this up. I'm using ext4 on my SSD (64GB) and my rotating disc HD (3 TB), and would like to seamlessly use the SSD to cache.

      • I couldn't remember, nor find it via google. But I found a few other 3.9 release stories that pointed there so I went with that. I was just surprised that TFS didn't include any actual details.
  • by jrepin (667425) <jlp&holodeck1,com> on Monday April 29, 2013 @07:34AM (#43579685) Homepage
    KernelNewbies isn't reachable at this time so a nice review of cool new features in Linux 3.9 [h-online.com] is available at The H Open.
  • No, just kidding.

  • I have an 80GB SSD and a 500GB HDD and I want to use the SSD as dog intended, as a cache for the HDD. bcache is in 3.9, that's great news. it will be mainline in 3.10, that's even better, because it means distributions will support it.

    Does it still require reformatting all your volumes? That was lame.

    • Correction, it seems that it is dm-cache which is in Linux 3.9, not bcache. I'm also looking to use this!
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Correction, it seems that it is dm-cache which is in Linux 3.9, not bcache. I'm also looking to use this!

        Hmm, sorry, brain fart. Nobody ever wants to discuss dm-cache here, but we did discuss bcache a few times. Maybe the dev gave up, he didn't seem very motivated. I tried dm-cache once but it was only being maintained for very old kernels, which makes me worry now.

  • Been waiting for that in linux for a while.

  • awesome! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 29, 2013 @08:32AM (#43580017)
    This version includes my patches for large HOSTS file support. Previously, the kernel used a fixed buffer size for the HOSTS file entries. relatively largeish (1 million+ entries) overflowed it and entries were dropped. 3.9 will dynamically resize (zero-copy algorithm) so the Linux KERNEL now officially has the best HOSTS file support anywhere.
    • by KiloByte (825081)

      YHBT. The kernel has nothing to do with HOSTS files.

      • by iggymanz (596061)

        *plop* the decapitated body of yet another HOSTS file troll victim hits the floor

    • by iggymanz (596061)

      even more amazing, this new kernel can run a special name resolving service that eliminates the need for a HOSTS file in most cases!

  • It'd be nice if they'd build in the patch for bugs like this, which have gone on in multiple distro kernels for years: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/578506?comments=all [launchpad.net]
    • What makes you think this is a kernel bug? It looks like removing the battery and putting it back in solves the issue, so this is more likely an error in the ACPI DSDT of the laptop.
  • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Monday April 29, 2013 @12:12PM (#43582143)
    An over-the-top subject line no doubt, but as a Linux (LMDE) home user, I am a little concerned about this wonderful OS ecology apparently in just one Torvalds-shaped basket. It seems odd to me that this experience - where community involvement is so beneficial - has a single person that has total thumbs up / thumbs down power.

    Yes, this is mostly Linus' baby, but assuming he's not immortal, how much planning is going into the inevitable transition? History is littered with examples of rapid decline / fall / outright war (aka forking) after the strong, hands-on founder is gone. I don't want something as precious as Linux to be destroyed in interneciene BS as that is just what its many enemies desire and will outright foment.
    • I am a little concerned about this wonderful OS ecology apparently in just one Torvalds-shaped basket.

      Then fork it :p ... thats how it works, see how many users of Linus kernel switch to yours.

    • Torvalds is an arrogant control freak who thinks he knows best when it comes to kernel design. The reality is very far from this as Linus has ignored continual flaws in his beloved kernel for years. He may be pope of the Linux kernel but he has no influence over distro developers and their unstructured implementation of GNU userland & third party apps. GNU/Linux has become a chaotic mess because of its fragmentation and lack of proper integration.

Passwords are implemented as a result of insecurity.

Working...