Linux 4.0 Kernel Released

An anonymous reader writes "The Linux 4.0 kernel has been released. Linux 4.0 brings many features including live patching, Radeon DisplayPort Audio, RadeonSI fan control improvements, new OverlayFS functionality, Intel Quark SoC support, and a heck of a lot more. Linus's release announcement reads in part: "So I decided to release 4.0 as per the normal schedule, because there really weren't any known issues, and while I'll be traveling during the end of the upcoming week due to a college visit, I'm hoping that won't affect the merge window very much. We'll see. Linux 4.0 was a pretty small release both in linux-next and in final size, although obviously 'small' is all relative. It's still over 10k non-merge commits. But we've definitely had bigger releases (and judging by linux-next v4.1 is going to be one of the bigger ones)."

Moving too fast - boycott the Linux Kernel!

[Anonymous Coward]

Four major versions in 25 years, who does Linus think he is? He's drunk with power!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 20 billion Linux kernels in use on a daily basis. How many exploits have your heard about, troll?

Re:Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel?

[TheRaven64]

Here's the list [cvedetails.com], though a few are mis-filed (the arbitrary code execution from this year is actually in Flash, no idea why it appears here), but most of the privilege elevation ones from this year and most of the arbitrary code execution vulnerabilities are real (though several seem to be in Logitech HID drivers).

Re: Is it as secure as OpenBSD's kernel?

[Anonymous Coward]

You do understand that Shellshock was not a Linux vulnerability, right?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, even if bash is part of most Linux installation, the weakness is not across the board. For instance, the default shell (that is used by CGI scripts) is often binded to dash instead of bash.

Having bash as the default user shell does not have anything to do with shellshock.

variation in user land and "GNU/Linux"

[DrYak]

In practice Bash is part of most Linux installations.

Even in the realm of "GNU/Linux" not everybody uses bash (some use zsh, for exemple).

And that's only the portion of users running an actual "GNU" userland.

Then you have the embed world using Busybox (with uClib, etc.) and co for the userland (which has its own simplified shell).
And then you have Android (which runs a completely different user land by Google, like Bionic for a C library, a different message passing bus, and most of the things usually handled by deamon running in userland, handled by java-like code on a java-like VM).

And the other way arround: you have other Unice (OS X, various *BSD) which obviously do not run Linux kernel, but do run bash.
OS X, for example, was affected by bash.

Re:

[Black Copter Control]

The question was about kernels (read the subject line). Bash is heavily used in the Linux world, but it's not part of the kernel. You do not need to use the Linux kernel to use bash, and you do not need to use bash to use the Linux kernel.

Bash is older than Linux and has been available for just about every version of **IX for a couple of decades, and even Windows (via cygwin).

Re:

[Black Copter Control]

Actually, Linux does have marketshare. It's got huge marketshare of the server market, and servers can be high-value targets for a large variety of reasons. There are people who want to target Linux. They've just had a much harder time doing so than they have with MS-Windows.

2.6.32 anyone?

[Lord Apathy]

I suppose I should start looking to upgrade my old Centos 6.6 box. I'm running a 2.6.32 kernel on that. I've thought about upgrading to the new Centos 7,0 but I'm not sure I want to fuck with it. The current system I have works perfectly and does exactly what I need it to do.

Re:2.6.32 anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose I should start looking to upgrade my old Centos 6.6 box. I'm running a 2.6.32 kernel on that. I've thought about upgrading to the new Centos 7,0 but I'm not sure I want to fuck with it. The current system I have works perfectly and does exactly what I need it to do.

Well Centos 7 will cure that. It's based on systemd.

Re:

[Lord Apathy]

Someone seriously, went to the effort to mod this down? Was it because I suggested that I might go to a dist with systemd on it? Really, don't you have better things to do than worry about what is running on my bitch box?

Re:

[Lord Apathy]

Maybe he just wanted to preemptively discourage the subsequent bitching and moaning we'll hear from you once you do experience the problems of systemd first-hand?

Why would I bitch about something I have been using for 2 years? I'm very familiar with systemd, and doubt I would bitch about it.

Re:

[serviscope_minor]

The current system I have works perfectly and does exactly what I need it to do.

Then I recommend not upgrading. The only reason to upgrade so if you run out of security updates or if you need newer features from a newer version.

Re:

[Daniel Hoffmann]

Usually I just copy my home folder and reinstall my programs. If you don't install much stuff outside your package manager the harder part is remembering what to install.

My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool.

[Immerman]

Yeah. I really wish there was a tool that would make it easy to export a list of all installed user software which you could could then import into your new system. Unfortunately the only technique I ever found (and I've forgotten what it was at this point) generated a text file listing *every* package installed on the machine - a list nigh guaranteed to bork a machine if I tried to import it all on a different OS version. And good luck sorting out the 10% of user software from the umpteen dozen pages of

Re:

[Daniel Hoffmann]

To me it is not that big of a problem, once I see I need a program I just install it and its configurations are already on my home folder. More of an on demand type of thing. Compared to reseting a Windows box this is easy.

Re:

[Immerman]

My problem is mostly the many dozens of rarely-used but occasionally important programs in my library. I mostly don't remember their names (f.ex. I type "character map" into the menu to find it), and a lot of them I had to go through several alternatives before finding one that suited my needs. To reinstall them without a list I typically have to go through the whole tedious process again.

But even trying to sit down and remember the dozens of programs I use semi-regularly is a pain in the ass - my mind ju

Re:

[mrchaotica]

Step 1: Create a shell script that logs your install command before executing it. Something like this (warning: this is barely tested, and I have no idea what it will do if you pass it arguments involving fancy shenanigans like quotes and pipes and whatnot):

#!/bin/sh
prog=apt-get # or 'yum' or 'emerge' or whatever
echo "$prog $*" >> ~/install-commands.txt
$prog $*

Step 2: Alias your shell script to the name of whatever command you're replacing.

Step 3: Install software as usual. Each time you install a p

Re:

[Immerman]

Yes, I'm quite aware of the benefits of the command line, and was a hard-core enthusiast who eschewed GUIs for years. Nowadays I'm even more aware of the fact that it adds several layers of annoyance to what should be a straightforward process of, in the current example, discovering and installing software available in the repository.

GUI: search for software by type/keyword, see something whose description and screenshots look like it might do the job, hit install. Command line equivalent: ... ... ... ...

Re:

[VGPowerlord]

Now if only Debian/Ubuntu/Mint/DebianCloneOfTheMonth had some way to do keyword searches on the package list from the command-line [askubuntu.com].

Re:

[Immerman]

And which keyword would you search for to isolate all the software you've explicitly installed, but don't know the name of?

Re:

[jakimfett]

A quick google search [google.com] returns multiple ways to do this. It took me all of 20 seconds to find a one-liner that spit out a full list.

Re:

[VGPowerlord]

sudo dpkg -i

lists all installed packages on Debian-based distributions. sudo is there because it requires superuser privileges to use.

I should probably mention that there's also the "aptitude" package that can be run from the command-line to show a menu-based system for viewing and installing packages on Debian based systems, including searching for packages.

Among other things, it has options for showing you currently Installed packages and Searching for new packages.

Re:

[Immerman]

-i is for install, did you mean -l ? Doesn't do what I'm looking for, as you say it lists all installed packages, I only want the manually installed, user-accessible ones - the rest tend to be dependencies and distro-specific stuff which may cause problems on other distros.

Thanks for the attempt though, some others have offered solutions closer to what I'm looking for, as well as pointing out that Google is much better about offering answers than the last time I looked.

Re:

[jakimfett]

If you're using apt, you can just grab a list [askubuntu.com] of manually installed packages [github.com].

Re:

[tepples]

On demand is fine on a desktop. But a laptop isn't always connected to the Internet. For example, you might be riding public transit in a city that doesn't provide Wi-Fi on its buses and at its bus stops.

Re:My kingdom for an easy software reinstall tool.

[turbidostato]

"Unfortunately the only technique I ever found (and I've forgotten what it was at this point) generated a text file listing *every* package installed on the machine"

Unfortunately I fail to see where's the problem.

"a list nigh guaranteed to bork a machine if I tried to import it all on a different OS version"

Not my experience.

Now, my experience:
1) Debian-based: I don't reinstall that often (now that I remember, my current setup goes in time about 10 years or maybe more).
2) Debian-based when cloning a machine: when it's been the same release, no problem at all. When the receptor is a different version (newer) I installed a minimal system and then applied the package list. It might fail on some package disappearing or changing names (usually only a few) and then it's a matter to see what failed and act accordingly. Worst case scenario, I had to extract a list of the (partial) setup on the new machine and diff old/new.
3) Red-Hat based: yes, they are not so great at upgrading in place so I had to resort to the trick in point two. It was a bit longer and required more than one iteration but far from a drama.

"And good luck sorting out the 10% of user software from the umpteen dozen pages of semi-cryptically named packages."

From time to time (I mean months or even years, here) I spend no more than an hour looking at the installed package list. I know what most of the packages do, for the minority I don't know, I read its description as provided by the package manager. If still no clue, I try to unistall it and see what reverse-dependencies are going to be unistalled, which always made clear what was happening. Not a big problem either.

Oh! by the way, a few seconds of google search showed me how to list manually installed packages both for debian-based and redhat-based systems so it seems your concern was not so much a problem even for you as to expend even a minute looking for a solution.

Re:

[Immerman]

In-place upgrades are one thing, and they're great until one goes belly-up - so I usually avoid them. I've got work to do, I'm not interested in an unscheduled rebuild-from-scratch session, and my backup routine only looks at user files. As for the borking issue - I typically skip at least several versions between fresh installs, don't fix what's not broken, and in my experience the (I assume) accumulated changes tend to cause issues.

Ah, lovely, it does appear that Google has finally deigned to offer up th

Re:

[turbidostato]

"In-place upgrades are one thing, and they're great until one goes belly-u"

As I already told, the machine I'm writing this from was originally installed about ten years ago and upgraded in place since then, despite of the fact that, by now, it shares not a single piece of the original hardware.

In fact, in the last almost 20 years (wow, time really goes by!) I don't remember having an in-place upgrade going so bad that I couldn't recover it, and I'm talking hundreds, probably thousands of machines even worki

Re:

[Immerman]

Lucky you, but one anecdote does not a broad guarantee make. I've had a couple installs go belly-up on upgrade, and several more develop annoying glitches that I eventually resorted to a fresh install to eliminate (and I'm no IT slouch). My computers are tools - I bought them to do a job and demand they do so reliably. Regular upgrades are incompatible with that goal, especially broad-reaching OS-level upgrades.

I don't even upgrade the video drivers on my Window's gaming rig unless I'm having driver-rel

Re:

[Carnildo]

May I recommend Gentoo? The list of user-installed packages sits in /var/lib/portage/world, so re-installing on a new system is a simple as copying that file over and running "emerge --emptytree world".

(And then waiting a few days for compilation to finish, but then, if you weren't patient, why would you be running Gentoo?)

Re:

[Immerman]

Interesting. I'm not a fan of SuSE, but then it has been a while since I looked at it. Does this YaST list include all programs, or is it possible to just list the "user-accessible" (i.e. shows up in the menu) ones? Because I have no interest in specifically installing the then-current versions of various libraries and support software that shows up in the dependency lists of the software I'm using - time moves on, and package managers seem to have different policies for how upgrades should be handled for

Re:

[dave420]

YaST is very useful, but the sheer amount of stuff missing from OpenSUSE's repos means it's not very useful. Really, really staggering stuff. It's terrible. If you are lucky, you'll find someone's personal repo with a moderately-modern version of what you're looking for, but don't expect it.

Re:

[Immerman]

Shells are great, I grew up on the things, Didn't really give in and started using a GUI on a regular basis until Win95, and even it was configured to boot to the command line on demand. They're also tedious, annoying, and undiscoverable - especially when I just want to get a conceptually simple job done as one small step in an already annoying process. Can't say I have any reason, under normal circumstances, to use the shell tools that would make the job straightforward - which means using them for that o

Re:

[Lord Apathy]

Yeah, the longer you wait to upgrade, the more stuff tends to break during the process. You may be past the point of no return.

I'm already starting to see that. Most of the stuff I use runs fine. Mysql, plexserver, samba and a few other apps. I'm already seeing stuff that will not compile for it. XBMC will not compile on Centos6, and nether will the latest version of HandBrake.

XBMC is not really an issue, but Handbrake I use all the time to encode stuff for the plex server.

Re:

[oobayly]

Handbrake? Your distro comes with a wife?

Coincidence?

[Chris Katko]

It's kind of funny that Microsoft has also decided to move their Kernel from version 6.1.62.6.2.7.21.1.6.2.2.000.02.432.523.253.532 to 10.0 in Windows 10.

I wonder if some useless managers got wind of Linux changing theirs, and made their developers change the number.

"Dear busy senior developers: I just found out Linux made a bigger number. Why can't we? Why are you wasting our time fixing bugs? Add this feature I just heard about today! It's very important.

Sincerely,
--Scott Miller"

Re:

[Zocalo]

Why couldn't they have done this when those Downfall parodies were all the range, this one could have been awesome. Hitler, Developers, Developers, Developers, Linux is a Cancer, the Secret Flying Chairs of the Luftwaffe. It practically writes itself...

Re:

[Chris Katko]

I still think people would watch the crap out of that video if you want to make it.

Re:

[jgtg32a]

IIRC MS always wanted versions of windows to incitement the major release every time they released a new OS. Turns out they couldn't because too many software developers screwed up detecting the version of windows the OS was and it software wouldn't run on newer versions.

Re:

[dave420]

It returns '6.2' in Windows 8.1 and 10 Technical Preview. Also, fyi, GetVersionEx() is deprecated.

What about RdRand issue?

[sinij]

Are they planning to adjust how RdRand is used in random.c ?

Re:

[GameboyRMH]

No, it's not an issue.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... [theregister.co.uk]

RdRand could be 100% predictable and it wouldn't cause a problem.

Re:

[sinij]

RdRand could be non-random without negative impact, but what if it is maliciously non-random? For example, manipulating RdRand to consistently pump duplicate of the output buffer will result in a very compromised seeding (0x0000..).

Re:

[GameboyRMH]

It hasn't been observed to do that...if RdRand was found to ever produce meaningful quantities of low-randomness output, then it should be eliminated as an entropy source.

Re:

[sinij]

I don't think you are fully considering the possibility of maliciousness. RdRand, because of on-chip whitening is completely opaque, there is no way to audit its functionality. How can we trust something like that with such crucial cryptographic functionality? If your seed your RNGs with predictable seed, then all of your crypto can be easily broken.

Sure, if CPU is backdoored, then your system is compromised no matter what you do, and it can leak all secrets in whichever way. Most of that can be detect

Still not The Year of Linux on Desktop

[jones_supa]

I'd like to interject for a moment. Sadly, the desktop is still extremely glitchy. Let me show some examples.

1) Notebookcheck a new Intel NUC [notebookcheck.net]. Intel HD Graphics 6000 was missing Linux support at the moment of writing. That's not the end of the world, but how does Linux Mint report about it? Nope, you don't get an informative "device not supported" message, nor does X.org fall back to a VESA mode. Instead you get corrupted graphics! Nice failure mode there. Just look at the screenshot in the article. Does that look professional to you?

2) When you install Linux, various manual hacks are needed to correct all sorts of little glitches here and there. Read the installation report of this guy [wordpress.com]. Does that seem familiar?

3) Laptop brightness adjustment still goes in multiple steps! I can't believe this bug is still around. The same issue is in Ubuntu in Mint and affects most laptops. Bug #527157 [launchpad.net]. Just try pressing the brightness keys of your laptop under Linux and you see what I mean. An everyday feature like this should Just Work without me having to even think about it.

Conclusion: I need an desktop operating system that is more deterministic in behavior. I want robust and predictable user experience. This is not rock solid at all.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to accept that Linux is for competent people, and it will never be the right OS for you. Seriously. Just find a website somewhere where people want to hear M$ Fanboi drivel and go there. You add no value here.

Re:

[LordLimecat]

Poe's law strikes again! I truly have no idea if you're trolling or actually being serious.

Re:

[turbidostato]

"Conclusion: I need an desktop operating system that is more deterministic in behavior."

Conclusion: you need an desktop hardware that properly makes public its spec and/or provides drivers for more than just a single operating system.

Somehow I managed to do it for the last fifteen years and more.

Re:

[LordLimecat]

Intel provides more support and documentation for their hardware than anyone else of consequence. Their graphics drivers are very widely considered the best for linux, and they contribute a huge amount to kernel dev.

If Intel hardware isnt working right, there are serious problems.

Re:

[jones_supa]

1) My point is not whether HD 6000 is supported or not. The point is that there will occasionally be unsupported hardware and the mode of failure should not be corrupted graphics.

2) I accept your counterargument. It's true that the amount of tweaking depends on the distro.

3) Some laptops have only about 10 levels of brightness and that amount is halved (or some times even divided into three), which results to 5 levels of brightness. It's too coarse. There are some workarounds to decrease the steps which wor

Re:

[jones_supa]

I always get these excuses.

"It's the distro you're using."
"You can only blame yourself for choosing wrong hardware."
"Those drivers are known to be crap under Linux."

Just make it work!

I don't want to have to find the optimal combination where the stars are aligned. If Linux actually was good, the situation would simply be: "Use any hardware and software you want. Works great."

Re:

[jones_supa]

No disagreement there...

Re:

[jones_supa]

2) Installing the OEM drivers is usually not a major hurdle, but yes, you are correct about that. However, it's still a long way to the constant glitch-fixing under Linux world.

3) Under Windows the brightness changes one step at time. Under Linux it can incorrectly change two or three steps per keypress.

Such... little details... Find more Here.

[lordmage]

So www.lwn.net has a better section dealing with the 4.0 kernel including what persistent memory and lazytime changes are. I would suggest going there.

http://www.lwn.net/ [lwn.net]

I like to find more information than the smattering that was a "detailed look". as they say.. NOT.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Me too, I'd so prefer release numbers like Chrome.

Introducing Linux 3652!

Re:

[VGPowerlord]

Uh what, you're kidding right?

I mean, 3652 is SO yesterday. We're on version 4023 this microsecond! 4077 I mean... damn it, it changes faster than I can type.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer "Linux XP"

FTFY.

Re:Arbitrary major version jumps

[Anonymous Coward]

Our sales department decided in our contracts a (totally arbitrary) policy to "support" only the last 3 major versions of our products. This means we periodically update the major version just so we can stop supporting the older versions even if there are not any major new features.

Re:

[arglebargle_xiv]

I know that sounds like cynical marketroidism, but sometimes you do need to do that to wean people off some hideously ancient version they're still running on an old 386 under Netware 3.1 bricked into a wall next to the second floor men's toilet. "Last 3 major versions" sounds like a pretty generous strategy, we do "last n minor versions", where n is usually spread over 2-3 years. In other words unless you have a long-term support contract, if you come to us with a problem in a product written in the heyd

Re:

[turbidostato]

"know that sounds like cynical marketroidism, but sometimes you do need to do that to wean people off some hideously ancient version they're still running on an old 386 under Netware 3.1 bricked into a wall next to the second floor men's toilet."

Why do you think those people are running "some hideously ancient version they're still running on an old 386 under Netware 3.1 bricked into a wall next to the second floor men's toilet"? Do you think it's in order to upset your tech department or it might be becau

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think those people are running "some hideously ancient version they're still running on an old 386 under Netware 3.1 bricked into a wall next to the second floor men's toilet"? Do you think it's in order to upset your tech department or it might be because it does what it needs to do so if it's not broken why should I need to fix it?

To add insult to injury, remember you would have no problem supporting ancient versions of your software if there were no bugs to fix on it so what you really are doing is failing to provide the customer with a product that just works as it should without broken parts.

The way the world actually is, the acceptable market standard for software is not "perfection", and beyond a certain date back-porting fixes is just unrealistic. Sometimes the fix IS to move onto a newer version. You can't easily get comparable PC's and software of that age for developers to test on, and expecting every developer you hire to not just learn about the current system version, but also about the detail of decades of development history before they can get working is implausible. Asking a recent

Re:

[turbidostato]

"Look up Rice's Theorem. Or work on a major software project. It goes way beyond unfair to expect a complex software system to "just work as it should" - it's mathematically impossible to make sure it does."

No problem with that. So the software doesn't work as it should when shipped? Ok. But that's not the point: I was not talking about the software not being ready when shipped but the vendor's negative to correct it. Is it ten years down the road when I step into a broken part of the product? so what?

"s

Re:

[turbidostato]

"In other words, there is no methodical way to guarantee anything interesting about a piece of software, and that includes whether it works properly under every input. You can verify that it works with "typical" inputs, but there will always be some set of boundary conditions that you couldn't possibly have known to check on day one."

You can put it any way you want, since I already accepted that and asked "so what?"

You are arguing that you can't deliver flawless software by day zero (which I alredy accepted

Re:

[marcosdumay]

Yes, you should look up Rice's Theorem.

With cars, it's posible. With complex software it isn't. There's a reason for that.

Re:

[turbidostato]

"With cars, it's posible. With complex software it isn't. There's a reason for that."

No, with cars isn't possible either. Every major brand has recalls and maintenance programs for that very reason. The difference is that respectable brands will launch a maintenance program for a detected flaw even if it is ten years down the road and customers will enrage and go for a class action if they don't.

And cars, being physical objects will have wearing parts and, again, people won't accept a "buy a newer model"

Re:

[turbidostato]

"That may sound funny to you guys [...] Eventualy we found two servers standing next to each other, underneath a pile of cardboard boxes and rolls of toilet paper, in the building supervisors storage cupboard, both running netware 2.15 ( it was early nineeties). Both with an uptime of more than two years."

Forgetting the issue about no backups, I don't find it funny but sad: it just shows the utterly lame situation of IT the fact that something like this comes to a surprise instead of being the norm.

Re:

[Kjella]

Parent poster here, I tried to convince the my manager and sales department to give support on a time basis based (X years after delivery date), but the "that is not how other companies bigger than ours do it" argument won over mine. So as a result we update our versions based around the time we think we supported the old versions long enough.

I think a combination works best, major releases makes most sense when it comes to technology/code you must support while a minimum number of years makes sure you won't go Firefox and suddenly be at version 40. For all the other bashing Microsoft can take, their policy is actually a good model:

Mainstream Support for Business, Developer, and Desktop Operating Systems will be provided for 5 years or for 2 years after the successor product (N+1) is released, whichever is longer. Microsoft will also provide Extended Support for the 5 years following Mainstream support or for 2 years after the second successor product (N+2) is released, whichever is longer.

Basically you get a guaranteed 10 years of support from release, 7 years as long as you're buying the latest version (minimum 2+5) and if it takes longer the support period stretches too. Don't expect another XP thoug

Re:

[TheRecklessWanderer]

Do you work for Sage?

Re:

[ruir]

They may be in "10", the sweet irony is that Linux is more stable than both.

Re:

[fluffernutter]

*IF* you don't change it.... or dare to dream by suspending it and expecting it to come alive again exactly the way it was before. Double headed may or may not work. Yeah, other then that it is stable.

Oh and you need linux support for all the hardware in your machine. And have the fortune that all new (within the last 10 years) features of your device are supported in the available linux driver. Not to mention whether it will support dual graphics cards.

And before you go on saying 'x' distro does i

Re:

[turbidostato]

"Oh and you need linux support for all the hardware in your machine."

Are you implying Windows doesn't need support for all the hardaware in your machine? Seems a bit weird.

Re:

[fluffernutter]

I'm saying that I have never had a problem obtaining a driver for windows that allows the device to work as advertised. Not the case on Linux. I've spent hours installing drivers, or installed the 'commercial driver' only to find that the device is missing features or is flaky with KDE and or Gnome. I've had many devices that don't work properly on OS/X.

Re:

[SuricouRaven]

The big difference is manufacturer support. You can guarantee Windows is supported by every manufacturer - you don't even have to check, it's a given. Linux has a smaller presence, especially on the desktop. Small enough that manufacturers may or may not support it, and even if they do support it their drivers may be less refined.

Re:

[ruir]

You are completely out of your head...in fact Linux supports even better older and newer machines alike. Recently I had to reinstall one old desktop and two older laptops. Windows has not cooperating, it was a walk in the park installing linux, no drivers hassle, nothing at all. Plus, in one of the notebooks I had a specific request for Linux for a non-IT user because they are already tired of dealing with malware.

Re:

[SuricouRaven]

My desktop has a slightly-off ACPI implimentation. Linux (at least this distro) crashes during kernel init unless you add acpi=off. This is a fairly common problem: Windows has a horribly off-spec ACPI system, it's a real mess, but manufacturers test extensively to make sure their mainboards are fine with it and include all the required workarounds. They have little reason to test so extensively for linux, and so can crash when given an OS that actually follows the standard.

Re:

[ruir]

You lost me at Windows is the most headache fee OS. I left Windows in 95, and never ever will come back. I also have the dubious honour of throwing out of the window of my car a Windows based GPS and buying a Linux based on the same day. The cherry on the top is our Windows admin installing a Linux system for his desktop a couple of weeks ago because he had already had had enough with viruses. Linux may have had all the problems you talk maybe 15 years ago, you have to try it again.

Re:

[fluffernutter]

I'm not sure if this is what you are saying, but it is a bit much to expect to be able to upgrade your OS and have it still work with all your devices. Windows has a very long support Window so you can still use all Windows 7 devices. I admit I have a dongle that only worked with windows xp and I was pissed about that. But at least it worked in windows. I tried it in Linux and it was somewhat there but not really. IT was a home automation dongle.

Re:

[ruir]

Those who say Windows is supposed to have a long support of something have no idea what hey are talking about.

Re:

[dave420]

Not really - Microsoft's love of backwards-compatibility is well known, and features prominently in Windows. The fact you've not got any concrete examples isn't exactly helping you sound any different from an offended fanboy. I know you're not one, so you might want to work on that ;)

Re:

[ruir]

Mode me down all day long in opinion, if you want. Which is not the way mod points should be use but I digress. The fact is that the uptime of a Windows machine can only be measured in months, or actually weeks, OS/X unfortunately for me and others, is crashing at least once or twice a week with it used to be rock solid for months before 10.8, and the uptime of Linux boxes can be measure in months or years, and often I only take them down to do a kernel upgrade. But obviously the slashdot crowd knows best.

Re:

[ruir]

Mode me down all day long in opinion, if you want. Which is not the way mod points should be use but I digress. The fact is that the uptime of a Windows machine can only be measured in months, or actually weeks, OS/X unfortunately for me and others, is crashing at least once or twice a week while it used to be rock solid for months before 10.8, and the uptime of Linux boxes can be measured in months or years, and often I only take them down to do a kernel upgrade. But obviously the slashdot crowd knows best

Re:

[dave420]

I think the main points people are disliking about your posts are: Confusing the notions of "ruir" and "everyone else", mistaking your opinion for fact, and offering your handful of anecdotes as being representative of the experiences of everyone else.

Re:

[ruir]

If the reputable AC says so. The fact is that I can have a Linux server going for years, Windows needs periodic reboots, and the latest OS/X crashes at least once a week. But then, the AC knows best, exactly?

Re:

[VGPowerlord]

Well, no, let them use their date based numbering versions.

Just remind them that Windows was at version 2000 sixteen years ago...

Re:

[bobbied]

Shouldn't that be in a separate driver?

Yes.... But isn't that what a "kernel module" is? Isn't it just a separate file that contains the functions you need to access the hardware? (or in the case of Linux, the source that you can choose to link directly into the Kernel that does the same thing?)

HINT: That's exactly what it is.

As I understand this, Kernel 4.0 allows some new features to be use by the drivers and some module authors are choosing only to support the 4.x branch of the kernel for their hardware and not have to maintain two code ba

Re:

[hobarrera]

You'll generally just have to rebuild your app.

If you picked some technology which is windows-specific to design it, then it's probably your fault that Linux won't run it, not the kernel's.

Oh, and we've got wine, in any case, which seems to run a great many things just fine.

Wine runs Windows desktop apps

[tepples]

To run Windows desktop applications on the Linux kernel, you'll need to install the X Window System and the Wine application environment on top of it. (Most desktop-oriented distributions of GNU/Linux include both of these in their repositories.) Try running Windows desktop applications in Wine, and if they don't work, you can report the failure to both the application's publisher and the Wine team.

Re:

[ikhider]

Have you tried to use Wine for Adobe CC? Good luck!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment is totally irrelevant. Photoshop 3.0 has been working perfectly fine for at least a year now!

Re:Wine runs Windows desktop apps

[armanox]

You mean you're not using Photoshop [erimez.com] for UNIX [altervista.org]?

Unspecified or undefined behaviors

[tepples]

If the Wine team discovers that a particular application is relying on unspecified or undefined behaviors of a particular Windows function, behaviors that may break in a future version of Windows, then who is responsible?

Re:

[Drinking Bleach]

Wine is a compatibility layer for Windows applications. It must emulate all of Windows' bugs and undefined behavior to the best possible extent, even containing a whole bunch of case statements to change its behavior when different versions of Windows are set via winecfg (not unlike Windows' own compatibility mode, which tends to just have every version of every DLL ever in WinSxS to solve the problem...).

To Wine, Windows bugs are features, and applications depend on them. Maybe it will never be perfect, bu

Re:

[tepples]

It must emulate all of Windows' bugs and undefined behavior to the best possible extent

Including applications that take a secure hash of Windows system files and send this hash to a server for verification? This sort of behavior is seen, for example, in cheating detection libraries used by games for the Windows desktop platform.

Re:

[Drinking Bleach]

Wouldn't that break every time a Windows Update comes through?

I haven't heard of this behavior before. That would prove problematic I'd think :P

Re:

[tepples]

Wouldn't [verification of Windows system files in an anti-cheating service for online video games] break every time a Windows Update comes through?

I imagine that such an anti-cheating service will switch to blacklist behavior on Patch Tuesday until the majority have provided the correct hashes of updated files to the anti-cheating service provider.

I haven't heard of this behavior before.

I've read reports of Punkbuster and Games for Windows Live applying something like this. From this post [winehq.org]:

Wine could fully implement the Windows API - but how it return the same hashs, etc. for operating system files?? So it will **never** fully support such products as GFWL, Punkbuster, etc. (that can use low

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you're a troll but say that next time you do anything with your bank card!

Re:

[Lumpy]

I do a lot with my bank card. and not trolling Linux does not have anything usable for video editing.

This is a 100% solid fact, No Adobe Premiere, no Sony Vegas, no Final Cut Pro, no AVID...

Re:

[ikhider]

Yeah, what can be done about this? The current GNU/Linux alternatives still have a catch up time of at least a decade in this field. Pixel editing is okay, vector editing is one of the success stories as well as digital photo development. But video is way off...If only one of these major companies can get a port to work on GNU/Linux...unless we can crowdfund openshot or some similar ilk to close the gap...