Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux

Linux 3.11 Officially Named "Linux For Workgroups" 376

Posted by samzenpus
from the same-great-taste dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Linus Torvalds decided to change the code name for Linux 3.11 and even submitted an alternate Tux Logo. Heise reports: 'For this release, Linus Torvalds changed the code name from "Unicycling Gorilla" to "Linux for Workgroups" and modified the logo that some systems display when booting: it now depicts a Tux holding a flag with a symbol that is reminiscent of the logo of Windows for Workgroups 3.11, which was released in 1993.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux 3.11 Officially Named "Linux For Workgroups"

Comments Filter:
  • by Trepidity (597) <delirium-slashdot@@@hackish...org> on Monday July 15, 2013 @12:12PM (#44286331)

    It's pretty clearly a parody, not a trademark misuse that could cause confusion in the marketplace.

  • Re:what? (Score:5, Informative)

    by pipatron (966506) <pipatron@gmail.com> on Monday July 15, 2013 @12:59PM (#44286947) Homepage
    It's actually Eric Raymond's own distro: http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/gun-linux [geekz.co.uk]
  • Two different flags (Score:5, Informative)

    by tepples (727027) <tepples AT gmail DOT com> on Monday July 15, 2013 @01:06PM (#44287027) Homepage Journal

    Windows 7 uses the Windows XP flag [wikipedia.org], not the different flag [wikipedia.org] used for Windows 3.1 through Windows 2000. The XP flag has two curves in it and no dots; the Windows 3.1 flag has one curve in the flag and one curve in the dots.

    Godwin's law [pineight.com] anyone?

  • by verbatim (18390) on Monday July 15, 2013 @01:11PM (#44287087) Homepage

    Considering it's open source, it's not terribly difficult to verify the veracity of the article.

    https://www.kernel.org/diff/diffview.cgi?file=%2Fpub%2Flinux%2Fkernel%2Fv3.x%2Ftesting%2Fpatch-3.11-rc1.xz;z=367 [kernel.org]

  • by NJRoadfan (1254248) on Monday July 15, 2013 @01:48PM (#44287479)
    TCP/IP didn't ship with Windows for Workgroups. It was a separate installation.
  • by devent (1627873) on Monday July 15, 2013 @02:01PM (#44287619) Homepage

    Sadly it's not true. I really wish we would already have 32GB RAM or more as default for desktop or laptop computers. But (in my opinion) Windows stopped the progress with their inability to implement Windows 64 bit. Only Windows 7 got finally 64 bit as the norm.

    As far as I understand, Windows XP 64 was developed in 2001 for the Intel IA64 arch., not the AMD64 (x86_64) arch. Then later came Windows XP Professional x64 Edition in 2005 for the AMD64 arch. But of course being "Professional" most of the end-users does not got it from their OEMs. So almost all of the desktop and laptops have used Windows XP Home Edition.

    Windows 7 came 2009 and brought finally 64 support for "Home" users. So from 2003 to 2009 most home users don't knew anything about 64 bit and could not use more then 4GB RAM. Of course Linux was the first kernel to support AMD64 in 2001.

    Given the hard competition in the OEMs market for laptops and desktops, I think get a +12GB or +24GB edge would be really good to have. Since also Windows was not really know for performance and double the RAM would mean double the speed. Given the price for RAM it would costs the OEMs nothing. But the maximum was 4 GB for years and so the OEMs could not compete by increasing the RAM.

    Now we still only get 6 or 8 GB in laptops, in "business" or "gamer" laptops. By now the standard should be 64GB RAM and more. Given that anything else have increased rapidly, like CPU and GPU speed, L1/L2 cache RAM, hard disk size.

  • Re:what? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Silvrmane (773720) on Monday July 15, 2013 @03:57PM (#44289065) Homepage
    Sorta. It "boots" to running a startup script that executes a series of CLI commands (to mount various directories as aliases and to move some critical libraries to a RAM disk) before (usually) ending in a call to LoadWB, which prompts the system to load up the graphical workbench. When I had an Amiga I almost always left that step off my startup script because I did my work from, more often than not, the CLI, not the clumsy Workbench.
  • Re:what? (Score:4, Informative)

    by dbIII (701233) on Monday July 15, 2013 @05:55PM (#44290127)
    On Atari the operating system, known as TOS, was separate from the GUI, which was GEM. That meant that games could run without GEM even starting and that alternative GUIs known as "gemini" could run.
  • Re:Yo Linus! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Greyfox (87712) on Monday July 15, 2013 @08:17PM (#44291399) Homepage Journal
    Oh lord don't get me started on that. That was the single most crippling flaw in the operating system! And they COULD have fixed it! Someone posted a problem related to that on my queue one time, and I went out of my way to locate a quad processor machine running a multi-processor version of OS/2. The multi-processor version still had the problem mind you, but it had an input queue per processor. I was able to demonstrate that the system would continue working even with one (or up to three) input queues not being processed. All they really had to do was instantiate multiple input queues and one misbehaving app couldn't bring the entire system down! *sigh* Fuckers...

    This made OS/2 ironically better at multitasking windows and DOS applications than it was at OS/2 applications. Windows apps couldn't lock the input queue and could be run in separate instances of Windows so that if one crashed, you wouldn't bring the others down. If you opened a command prompt you could do multi-taskey things like format a disk and print something at the same time. The trick was you had to use the command line format and not the pretty GUI one.

    Ah IBM. Always reaching for awesome and always falling just a little bit short. The problem with them was they viewed the PC line as toys. You didn't use a PC to multitask. You used it as a dumb terminal to a mainframe. If you wanted to multitask, you dropped 5 digits on an AIX machine. Shitty CDE gui and all. I discovered Linux shortly before they announced they were killing OS/2, and Linux was really what I wanted anyway -- UNIX on my PC without having to pay SCO several thousand dollars for the OS (Which was something like $1200) TCP/IP (Which IIRC they wanted another grand for) and a goddamn C compiler.

    Ahh the good ol days...

The difficult we do today; the impossible takes a little longer.

Working...