Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

CNet Article On 2.4 Kernel 153

Posted by CmdrTaco from the stuff-to-read dept.
jho writes "This C|Net article talks about how the Linux 2.4 kernel, armed with Firewire, PnP and USB support, will be better equiped to tackle the desktop market. It's a intresting read as far as how Linux is being pushed to the mainstream. Have a look. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CNet Article On 2.4 Kernel More

CNet Article On 2.4 Kernel

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Linux 2.4 (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    *I* like Linux and I think he made a valid point

    What valid point? 2.4 is being developed currently, out in the open. It's called 2.3. That's how the numbering scheme works. 2.3 is the development track for 2.4.

    Reporting on what the kernel developers are doing is not a "vaporware" article; it is perfectly valid.

    Vaporware is when you *announce* software that is never delivered. That doesn't happen with the Linux kernel, therefore his point is invalid.

    All I saw in his post was anti-Linux whining.

    Bashing Linux and the GPL on Slashdot is the current trendy thing to do. It really stinks.

  • >As others have mentioned before, WinNT is based on Dec's VMS, an OS that is of the same vintage as Unix

    Hymm, I have always been told that NT is what Microsoft took away from the IBM/Microsoft joint venture called OS/2. They split in the late 80s, early 90s. IBM kept the name, but much of that technology was used by microsoft for NT. correct me if I am wrong, but isn't NTFS a highly modified version of HPFS on OS/2. perhaps the OS/2 project had roots in VMS, I'm not sure...
  • Time to get a grip. Why support broken hardware? Nuff said.
  • >the same OS that's preferred by hardcore hackers can be turned into a >newbie-friendly system -- without sacrificing stability or >functionality. Linux has room for everyone.

    Execept for Windows-using,Winmodem-loving script-kiddies like yourself. We "hard-core linux hackers" don't want or need your kind.
  • >USB gamepads are nice (you can daisy-chain 4 of them for multiplayer >games), etc.

    Who cares? I play games on the Playstation, not the PC these days, and I really don't have the slightest interest in digital cameras (USB or otherwise.)
  • C|Net pushing Linux? Dear God, say it ain't so.

    Is this supposed to be a good thing?
    Or is it the RedHat-going-public sort of "good" thing?

    Regards,

  • Linmodems....hehehe..
  • Ummmm not quite.

    Linux is based entirely on old unix ideas. The
    way the kernel is structured, for example. A lot
    of code in Linux (not the kernel, but the other
    main parts of the OS) come from GPL'd code from
    other Unices. On top of that, how old is Linux?

    On the other hand, BeOS has POSIX compliancy...
    and that's it from legacy land. The rest of it
    is all new tech. I don't think we need to rehash
    the list of cool features to illustrate that.

    -WW


    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
  • Actually I am a happy Linux user, but as most of us around here know, Linux isn't for everyone--yet. That's why there needs to be a debate, and you can't very well have a debate if no one contradicts your point. Linux will achieve "world domination" only after the developers scratch every itch.
  • DOS is a rip off of CP/M while the core of NT was originally from VMS. NT was giving drive letters and a bunch of other silly stuff so it looks like DOS. Then DOS/Windows was giving a bunch of silly things to make it work like NT. So basicly NT and Dos are completely silly.

  • The Linux Community (Score:3)

    by huh69 ( 57503 ) on Sunday August 01, 1999 @12:11PM (#1771769) Homepage
    At the time I post this, they're about 34 replys. I want to first start by saying clearly "I LOVE LINUX"

    Now for the flaming part:

    Why is it that the Linux community, for the most part can't accept a little press awareness or a little humor? I am a member of MDLUG (Metro Detroit Linux Users Group) and recently someone posted a funny site that was sarcatic to "Micorsoft" (as he put it), and the group went mad about it. Slam after slam was posted about how STUPID this guy was and I thought his site was hilarious (sorry I don't have the URL handy). I laughed my ass off.

    Now CNET is paying attention to Kernel 2.4... so what, big deal. The direction that Linux goes is controlled by what the Linux community wants and what the developers are interested in. God bless the people with that kind of knowledge.

    The point of the whole CNET article was that things like USB and Firewire were being worked on, who knows if it will actually be implemented or how stable it will be. As of right now Linux is still geared at people who are computer literate, but I think thats soon to change, especially if things like USB are implemented.

    Enough said... now will the uptight people in the Linux community please take a minute to pull the underware out of the crack of their ass' and just be glad that Linux is getting press time? Linux is serious but even Linus said it should be a little fun, and comments like most of these are worthless attempts to slam people that don't know as much as you do.

    IMHO, it's just as bad as M$ taking advantage of people's ignorance by hiding the fact that Win98 is version 4.1 and Win95 is version 4.0, how many people realized that? Not many I'll bet, atleast until they spent $89 on it.
  • Impossible? Never is anything impossible... The thing is why would we want to have Winmodem support? So it can make Linux as crappy as Windows? PNP support doesn't mean Winmodems man :) Just support for the devices so we don't have to do ISAPNP config files hehe
  • Full Firewire support probably will appear first in the PowerPC distributions. Just like USB is more usable on the PowerPC, because, well, they need it. (to prove my point... iMac.)
  • So what if we can put pixmaps on a friggen toolbar! Windows can't be themed as much as our Unix GUIs? I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling donut! It just doesn't matter. Fact remains, most people stick with the default look anyhow. Themes are just a silly add on with no functional purpose. Form over Function. There is no substance to your argument.

  • Linux 2.4 (Score:4)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 ) on Sunday August 01, 1999 @09:50AM (#1771776)
    Well, you can tell linux is going mainstream when the press starts commenting on the latest linux vaporware. 2.4 isn't out yet. It doesn't have all the features listed in the article in the kernel source. Reminds me of how the press treats a certain Redmond-based company - "w2k will have xyzzy feature - blowing away the competition!".

    Okay, mark me down now - I've spoken blasphemy against the holy os...

    --
  • I've been thinking about this for a while, and it's something I would be interested in helping with. But their's no way I could start or manage such a project, at least not until I graduate. I'm willing to donate time, moeny, & HW if anyone else in my area is doing something like this.
  • Some of us care. I don't like Windows' default look - it's ugly. And there's not a hell of a lot that I can do to make it "un-ugly". For the "average (l)user", if they're happy with the default look, great. For those of us who like to customize our environment... well, for us, there's X. To each their own, I guess.
  • It lays a better foundation for winmodems, the inexpensive software-dependent modems often found in low-cost computers.

    I thought that it was impossible to write drivers for winmodems. Is someone actually taking this on, or are the people at C|Net high?

  • Geeks Into The Streets!

    http://linux.umbc.edu/gits/

    Right now, it's only in the Baltimore, MD area. That's where the UMBC LUG (which is basically sponsoring the project) is located.

    Currently, they're working on the Agape House-- an inner-city Baltimore after school club. Anybody have some other projects they want to suggest?

    The ironic part is, a lot of groups seem to think that by giving kids a copy of MS Word, they are doing them a favor by making them learn the most well-known word processor. But when you give a kid Linux, he or she will learn System Administration, Programming, User Management, Networking, and Configuration.

    Anyway, check out Geeks Into The Streets. It's a pretty neat bunch of guys, IMHO.

    (Ignore the .sig-- it's buggy!)
  • I'm not going to cripple MY operating system just so some person who buys a computer from circut city can use it in linux.

    If you aren't able to recompile the kernel and remove support for hardware like winmodems, I don't think you really have the right to refer to Linux as "MY" operating system. That being said, I'm all for Linux support for any hardware out there, the more capable Linux is of replacing Windows, the more likely it will. Near as I've seen the only remaining point of contention is office suite applications.
    -Ted

  • Winmodems (Score:3)

    by Kyobu ( 12511 ) on Sunday August 01, 1999 @10:05AM (#1771784) Homepage
    I notice that among some other things, the new kernel will have at least some support for Winmodems. We all know that they're crap, but it's good news anyway, because lots of newbies don't know that. There's a lot of scorn among Linux users for anyone whose skills are anything below Guru. This is going to have to stop. A lot of people use Winmodems, and anything we do to make it easier for people with low-end hardware that the guy at Circuit City told them would be fine is great -- GNOME, Winmodem support, wheel mouse support, popular programs e.g. WordPerfect & Netscape. So this is a Good Thing (TM).
  • Maybe you are right, but would you honestly say that Xwindows is important for desktops and home computers? It could be a bit nicer and more integrated.
  • Maybe a name like SoftModem.....And some decent drivers. They don't work so well in WinDross because you can't have decent drivers if the OS is Crap, now can you?

  • Re:At least Win2000 is in Beta! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Do a little research before you make a complete ass of yourself.
    the Linux 2.3 branch IS the alpha/beta for 2.4
  • Well, because you want more people to be able to run Linux, of course.

    Anyway, it's not broken. It just has offloaded more of the work to software, rather than hardware. It's not any more broken than software DVD decoding compared to hardware DVD decoding is.
  • Yes, the kernel will have more functionality. Sure, this is good for the OS, but that only tackles half of the problem of entering the desktop market. Linux really needs a somewhat standardized set of distros to sit on top of it, and a lean, mean GUI before it can hit the desktop market with any real force. I hesitate to say that we have such a userfriendly and joe public ready distro in anything we see about today.

    "What is now proved was once only imagin'd"
  • As it happens, I just bought a USB scanner today (HP 4200c). I was thinking of getting a parallel port one, but the USB scanners were 2-3 times faster in all the benchmarks I've seen.
  • CP/M was based on Unix... Your point? and btw, Unix invented drive letters (/dev/hda /dev/hdb)

    Also, MS-DOS/Windows 9x has its roots in CP/M. Microsoft used VMS as a model when it ws developing NT. It only uses drive letters to emulate the feel of 9x.
  • Gee, and coincidently, The Internet is about 35-40 year old conceptual technology, and in actuality about 25 years old in use. What are you doing here? Get off this old crap technology.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • I don't know too much about USB or firewire. Are such devices for the iMac compatible with PCs?
  • Oh come ON!

    Linux's GUI is LIGHT YEARS ahead of ANYTHING from M$! Does NT have multiple desktops? Is it themable? What about the ability to run a program on one computer and display it on a second (appearing as though it were actually running on the second).

    That last feature leaves Windows+pcAnywhere in the dust.
  • Microsoft never really participated in OS/2, they only pretended to, they used it to get an edge in the applications market. They told everyone that OS/2 was the future OS, and everyone ported their apps, to OS/2, so whenMS Windows aarrived, Microsoft was able to force OEMs to install it,thereby leaving them with the only applications that would actually work on most PCs.

    For a better explaination, read "The Microsoft File" by Wendy Goldman Rohm (the one who co-authored a book with the Redhat CEO)
  • Okay. This comment definitely amuses me, considering that every time an anti-linux comment is moderated down everyone screams and bellows about /. being hopelessly pro-linux.

    Grow up.
  • And that brings up a unique dilemma...if winmodems are to be supported by linux, what do you call them? Certainly not "winmodems" :-)

    Jeremy
  • would that make you a 'luser'? :)

    That just occoured to me, and I thought it was funny :) I don't have anything aganst linux users at all (infact I plan on installing it once I get a new hard drive...)
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • Oh, one more thing: I hope we're mature enough not to even CONSIDER the concept of blue boxing with one of these things

    well you, can blue box with a Sound-blaster, so...

    it dosn't matter anyway, blue boxing won't get you anywhere now adays. :(
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • "Many of its design paradigms have been superseded, not necessarily by Win95, but by 30 years of OS research in general."

    Could you be more specific? Perhaps we can incorporate these ideas. Which Operating Systems embody these "good" design paradigms? We need intelligent criticism to improve the system.

  • Re:Winmodems (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    There's a lot of scorn among Linux users for anyone whose skills are anything below Guru. This is going to have to stop,


    Wrong. Computers are complex things. I refuse to give anybody an excuse to be ignorant. The last thing I want is the FURTHER dumbing down of our already completely moronic population.

    If you want Linux to suck as much as Windows, however, feel free to add all the wizards and talking paperclips you want. While you are at it, its clearly too much to ask for stability, since the "average" user doesn't need it. Also, the "average" user won't need anything well designed, since he will be using Visual Basic. Published APIs? Why bother? The "average user" wont need them. Remote access? No, its just too insecure, since it requires a tiny bit of computer literacy to secure your computer from "hackers". Better get rid of X, telnet, ssh and ftp too. The "average" user also wont want to deal with customizable window managers, he'll just break things, so please, stop letting people mess with complicated things like that.

    Leave Linux alone, and let MS dominate the "average" user market.
  • The first block-structured language, ALGOL...
    *snicker* any one else think that looks like ALGORE? Dunno, maybe he's the father of programming too!

    and slightly back on topic, i thought java was oak. it was called oak for awhile, but then they realized there was another language called oak so they renamed it to java. *shrug* thats what i heard


  • Folks,

    Linux is some Kool shit. I was just forced to upgrade 6 year old P1-90Mhz-PCs with Win95/16MRAM/1GHD/...) to a duo-op (WinNT + Unix, +64MRAM/+4GHD) (no money, no time, no thanks, ....) for a gov TEK (Technology Experience & Knowledge) learning center (TFG for Linux) management has no TEK idea/concept. I used my own copy of redhat-6.0.

    Six months ago they did not listen to me (I said Linux ... two months ago their TEK consultant said Solaris/i386 (I said Linux ...) ... two weeks ago they could not load Solaris/i386; So, this past week I installed and setup a small LAN connected with Telecoms (two old tactical circuit-switches and six cisco 2514 routers). Software Operating Systems (SOS) (WinNT-DOS and Linux-unix) worked very well together.

    RH-Linux loaded up in one-quarter (okay maybe one-half) of the time for WinNT, very straight forward network configuration for Linux, a little confussion about the network ....

    Linux-RH with all the GNU, Gnome, ... and other apps make Linux very user friendly. Linux-RH is a very competative package ... high-school and college freshman students could learn to install/use Linux-RH as easy as WinNT, in less time, on older ($75 hand-me-down) PCs, and have all/more apps/features (network/management/internet/...) than offered by a WinNT platform.

    Y'all have done a dang good job. What I was able to do in a week surprised me.

    "linux is going mainstream" is a very good thing.

    As a simple minded user ... THANKS BUNCHES FOLKS!

    Yep, I'm looking forward to "2.4" and what may come with it in the packages.


  • Linux on desktop, not soon.... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I love linux, best OS there is...usued it on my old 486/33 with kernel 1.3.X. BUT, it's not ready...and I'm not sure ever will be...and I rather hope it never will be at that.

    Mainstream means losing alot of power, you can
    have configuration tools that increase productivity, but after a time they are just fluff. Linux is gett emmensly more conveinent for power users....easier networking, SCSI, etc.

    However, the first time the power flicks out and now the thing has INODE blocks all of the place the grandma who bought a gateway will be lost. Specially when it loses some config file (what's w/ Mandrake 6.0 and the kdmrc file??? I need a UPS.)

    It's great, but it's a niche product, my niche, but still a niche.
  • Are you sure your external is connecting at 4800? That's what Win95OSR2 reports for mine, but it's clearly connecting at around 56k. I can't seem to figure out why that happens, other than that Windows is just plain screwy.
    --
  • "Linux is a redesign. Many ideas have been rethought using current thinking...It isn't surprising that fresh minds can do better - one would hope that we have learned something in 20 years." - Larry McVoy, former systems architect for Sun and SGI
    Full quote here [ultralinux.org]

    You were saying?

  • Does anybody have an idea of when 2.3 will re-merge FAT? The FS stuff was changed back in 2.3.6, but 2.3.12 still doesn't want to compile in FAT, which is pretty much required for me, as my /usr/src/linux resides in a big loopback file on a DOS partition ;-)

    /* Steinar */
  • So you don't want anyone else playing in your treehouse, eh? It's sad this attitude seems to be on the rise in the Linux community. Whatever happened to World Domination?

    There is no reason that stability and ease of use should be mutually exclusive. A large part of Linux's appeal is that, thanks to the Open Source aspect, it is infinitely mutable. With a bit of front-end coding, the same OS that's preferred by hardcore hackers can be turned into a newbie-friendly system -- without sacrificing stability or functionality. Linux has room for everyone.
    --

  • I'm quite sure Unix did not invent alpha-enumerated devices. Unix presents one large virtual filesystem, physical devices are mounted at points within it. You don't seem to understand the difference.

    NT did not use drive letters to "emulate the feel of 9x." NT predates Windows 95 by years.
  • What about the ability to run a program on one computer and display it on a second (appearing as though it were actually running on the second).

    That last feature leaves Windows+pcAnywhere in the dust.

    WinNT TSE and optionally MetaFrame (realisticly, you have to have MF; Citrix is very much in bed with MS). If you *really* want to use that sort of thing.
  • I for myself would apreciate ANYTHING included in the Linux-Kernel. Since I can configurate my own kernel to be compiled, I do not have to use all of them. But hey, I rather have Linux being able to do something I don't need, than to not being able to do something I need!
    Any feature is great, when it's implemented right and works properly.

  • Re:Winmodems (Score:3)

    by Trepidity ( 597 ) <delirium-slashdot@@@hackish...org> on Sunday August 01, 1999 @05:08PM (#1771821)
    Well, if you want Linux to become a desktop OS, as many people do, you must support Winmodems. An increasing number of PCs come with them. Nearly all sub-$800 PCs come with them. If you have no winmodem support, that's a huge chunk of the market that is not going to use Linux, no matter how good the rest of your OS is.
  • I don't see your logic. Virtually all sub-$800 PCs come with winmodems. They do so even though Linux doesn't support them. They will continue to do so even if Linux continues to not support them. The only difference is that there will be a large percentage of users who cannot use Linux, and will stick to win95 instead, since it lets their modem work.
  • Mac (and LinuxPPC) user here: What the friggin' hell is a Winmodem?
  • That was a friendly use of the word "fuck." See this.

  • No, not really. But the site he is talking about is here:

    http://www.freeyellow.com/members7 /geraldholmes/ [freeyellow.com]

    Funny as hell! I think it's already been on Slashdot, a couple days ago though.

    -Joe

  • Absolutely: Firewire and USB devices are part of the new oncoming protocols: as long as the manufacturer makes drivers, and the hardware and OS implement the protocols correctly, everything should be compatible.

    In fact, I've taken a USB Zip drive from Windows to Mac with zero problem.
  • Bad hardware maybe, but theres tons of it. It makes ultra low cost Linux netmachines even cheaper. Sure they use shit hardware, but it works and it's cheap. I'm still waiting for the $99 PC-3/486 with e-mail, word proc., net access.
    Regardless, the more hardware thats supported the more hardware that "just works" the more people that use Linux the more hardware they buy, yada yada yada..better software.

  • NT being influenced by VMS can be considered the same as it being based on VMS in a similar way to Metcalffe's claim that Linux is based on Unix.

  • 1. By "space travel technologies," I assume you
    mean the science and techniques used to put man
    in space? If so, then no, we should not throw
    that away. But if you mean the actual guidance
    computers, parts, etc. that powered man into space
    back then... well, yes, they should be stored
    away in a museum.

    2. The technology and ideas behind ALGOL may
    indeed be in use today, but how many languages
    are actually built on top of ALGOL? You bring
    up Java, but it was written from scratch. The
    authors of the language merely learned from
    previous languages and combined the best parts...
    they did not start with the ALGOL code-base, and
    go from there.

    3. Your analogy to firearms is also not workable.
    Again, the stuff we use today is based on the
    principles behind the first weapons ... not the
    actual weapons themselves. Show me a man shooting
    a 500-year old weapon, and I'll show you a man
    that stands a good chance of blowing his hand off
    or losing an eye to a misfire.

    I imagine your point was to try and show that just
    because Linux and other Unix-based OS's are based
    on legacy code, does not mean they need to be
    scrapped for something new. These analogies you've
    offered just don't do much for your point.

    Unix may be quality work, but it is also old
    technology. There are newer, younger OS's that
    are high quality, new technology, and free from
    legacy code. Windows is not one of those OS's,
    but BeOS certainly is...

    -WW

    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring

  • However, the first time the power flicks out and now the thing has INODE blocks all of the place the grandma who bought a gateway will be lost. Specially when it loses some config file (what's w/ Mandrake 6.0 and the kdmrc file??? I need a UPS.)

    Erm...
    I hope you feel stupid right now. 2.4 will have journaling code in the form of ext3fs, which is being finished up right now by Steven Tweedie. This means no more long fsck's.
    As soon as a file is changed (due to write() or mmap()'ed file access, or anything else) this info will be written to a conveniently located scratch area on the disk. If the power fails, and it comes back up, the fs notices there is stuff in the scratch area and does the modifications if they haven't been done yet.

    And don't let anyone tell you NT has journalling, it doesn't. It has half journaling, which means that the metadata is journaled, but nothing else. So basically, your still screwed if the power failed when your 5 gig database is left in an inconsistent state.

  • "Software Modems" as opposed to "Hardware Modems" ...

  • Mac equivalent: GeoPort :)
  • Ok, to be literal, here's how it went:

    DOS/Win used drive letters.
    NT 3.x kept them to emulate the feel of DOS/Win
    Windows 95 kept them to emulate the feel of DOS/Win
    NT4 kept them to emulate the feel of Win95
    Windows 98 kept them to emulate the feel of DOS/Win & NT4
    Win2000 probably uses drive letters, to emulate the feel of all of the above.

  • Re:What about OS/2 (Score:3)

    by IntlHarvester ( 11985 ) on Sunday August 01, 1999 @03:31PM (#1771840) Journal

    Well, NT's file/print sharing code came right from OS/2 (according to older NT documentation). The "Server" service even used to be called "LanMan Server" in NT 3.x. NTFS is also based on HPFS.

    However, the NT Kernel and HAL stuff looks nothing like anything that's in OS/2. The folks who designed this worked at DEC on VMS, so the design is influnced by VMS, but that's not the same thing as "based on".
    --
  • That's correct. (Yes, I know,a short message like this is almost not worth it, but I figured I may as well confirm it for anyone who isn't sure.)
  • >Don't think of them as just modems. Because they currently do not >work in Linux doesn't mean they're crap. WinModems have many >possibilities.

    As what? Filler for landfills like the old Atari 2600 carts?
  • Yes, but not as themable as some GUIs on top of Linux. You can't change the look of widgets in applications (like you can with Gtk+, and maybe Qt - I don't know, I don't follow Qt much). You can't put pixmaps in titlebars. Hell, you can't do anywhere near what you could with E. (I don't use E, but I'd say E is something of a pinnacle in the flexibility department) You can change a few font sizes, the wallpaper, and some colors. That's not very much in the way of themability.
  • NT isn't directly based on VMS, but there were several people (including one David Cutler, one of the chief architects of VMS) who had worked at Digital on VMS who Microsoft scooped up to help develop NT. So it does borrow a lot of concepts from VMS, but not code.
  • Of course, it does bear mentioning that NT is based on a lot of work done on VMS which was more stable than the Unix systems of its time, which in turn was based on the work done on PDP-11 systems. This work on the PDP-11s was also where some of the ideas that begat Unix started, so "I'm older and more mature" arguments don't really work in this context.

    Does the same argument apply to languages like BASIC and FORTRAN which are all older than C, or possibly even ALGOL (not sure on that one).

    A lot of the point about relatively new technology (including Unix, VMS and languages) is that you really can't tell what is going to be a success and what is a failure until you have the benefit of decades of hindsight. Who knows - BeOS may be the system we all end up using in a hundred years time, after all it does have a very good architecture. Open source systems may end up with a difference between ideology and implementation and crumble, the capitalist society we live in may fall to anarchy etc.

    Remember than when Unix was invented, no one 'knew' it was a success. They all have to start somewhere.
  • I started out with 1.2.7 (I forget now). I noticed 1.3.20 worked well on my box (never upgraded to anything higher until 2.0). If the even numbers are stable, and the odds are devel, what happened to 1.4.x? Maybe 2.3. will be 3.0.x
    --
  • Basically, it's a DSP with a little bit of RAM and a couple of phone jacks wired together and plugged into the ISA (or PCI) bus, and DSP code is downloaded on demand by software drivers to tell the DSP how to act like a modem.

    It's cheapo hardware, basically...
  • Amen. Another /. poster said it best, and I'm paraphrasing: "A computer is a tool like a space shuttle is a tool, not like a hammer." People expect a computer to be as simple as using a screwdriver, but it's not that kind of tool.

    And on the topic of features that the general public rarely (if ever) uses: Multitasking. Most people I know who are computer newbies will start a program, and instead of just going and starting another program, they save their work and completely exit the program they're running, then start the other program they want to run. So does that mean that we should remove multitasking too, since so many people don't use THAT either?

  • USB in demand? By who? Pretty much the only people I've seen "demanding" USB "products" are the "computer jornalists" who write articles for Ziff-Davis mags. Tell us something. Exactly what is a USB keyboard or modem good for? Other than eating up your money that is....
  • Not too many users (most users or the newest Macs, esp. the iMac, natch), but I wouldn't mind being about to plug my keyboard and mouse into the USB bus instead of PS/2 ports, or an AT keyboard port and a serial port. Also, the 2.3.x kernel has developing USB support (guess keyboards and mics both work now, and sound support is in the works), so we are on the way.
  • Oh, come on, surely you have a better memory than that. Before Windows 2000 came even close to seeing the light of day, it was hyped as the ultimate replacement for any operating system that ever existed, and I include VM/CMS, VMS, RSTS, etc :-).

    I don't see anything wrong with the same happening for Linux. Rampant speculation is just a part of being popular. Think of it as comparable to the Star Wars hype.

    Incidentally, I had to buy a car and wound up talking to a Realtor(R) car owner. When she learned that I was a computer guy, she vented her spleen about the new Windows-based computer systems in her office freezing up all the time. It was interesting because she'd already absorbed the anti-Windows perspective from the media, and was ready to suggest that MLS switch back to their old system or put together something, anything, else.

    I think the public may be wising up. Frankly, I never thought they would, but to see this happen is refreshing to say the least.

    D

    ----
  • It's possible to write drivers for anything. It's not possible to write a single driver for all winmodems, since there are so many different types. Further, it's not possible (or at least very hard) to write drivers for winmodems without information from the manufacturer, since the interface is not documented nor standardardized.

    But, it's quite possible to make the rest of the code "friendly" to winmodem drivers by modularizing the modem code and writing skeletal drivers, which makes the task of writing a winmodem driver as easy as possible.

  • Blasphemy? Perhaps not... (Score:3)

    by Raetsel ( 34442 ) on Sunday August 01, 1999 @10:22AM (#1771856)
    Kernel 2.4 is - at this very second - vaporware. Yes, I agree. Will it continue to be? Not a chance. There is a demand for the features that the article talks about.

    That's the wonderful thing about linux: instead of 'features' like an animated paperclip 'assistant', the people developing linux are answering only to thir own needs and things that there is a demand for. There are no marketdroids, no billionaire empire moguls commanding from on high (yet), and no single point of development. These are all Good Things.

    With this kind of a development system, I'm not at all surprised that there's no PnP (yet). I hate Plug-n-Pray. Firewire and USB? Bring 'em on, these I can use! However, I'm not yet confident enough to hack my own mods to a kernel, so all I can do is let it be known that I would like these features included in linux, please. Then an amazing thing happens: Enough people want something, and a very generous person dedicates a chunk of his or her life to staring at a glowing screen, and a few kernels later, things work.

    Know what, folks? This is a great time to be alive.

  • There are currently firewire implementations that aren't in the main development kernel. They're not vapor and they're certainly being worked on.
  • Man walked on the moon in 1969, the year before the dawn of the Unix epoch. Must we discard the aging space travel technologies pioneered during and prior to those days and start anew?

    The first block-structured language, ALGOL, is now about 40 years old. That software technology is still alive in the latest languages -- Java can trace its roots directly back to ALGOL.

    Firearms are now about 500 years old -- and still rule the world in a very literal sense. Further, all the modern pistols I've seen are mere refinements and variations on a 90+ year old design.

    It is not the arbitrary incident of when a technology is originally developed that determines its importance now and in the future. The solid stuff lasts and is refined and improved. Like it or not, the works of Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie were so fundamentally sound that new variations of Unix are just hitting their stride now, three decades later.

    That kind of quality is something that fans of Bill Gates' young empire, now pushing its third OS family, can only dream about.
  • Winmodems should go the same way...
  • If the even numbers are stable, and the odds are devel, what happened to 1.4.x?

    Linus decided there had been enough changes to warrant a jump all the way to 2.0

    Maybe 2.3. will be 3.0.x

    Perhaps, but I doubt it. Linux said he wanted to experiment with faster iterations. In other words, he wants fewer new features going into each release, which will allow more time to stabilize the code while it's still in development. He's also been good about not making huge version number jumps too quickly, and when he makes them it's for a damn good reason (wasn't 2.0 the first stable kernel to use ELF binaries?)
  • No, 1.2 used ELF. I don't know about 1.0 though, as my first Linux kernel was 1.2.13. 2.0 added modules and a lot more architectures (I think).
  • Snob.
  • 2.3 isn't 2.4's beta. At most, it's the alpha, more likely the pre-alpha. 2.4.0-pre will be the beta of 2.4 (just like 2.2.0-pre1 through -pre4 were the betas of 2.2). So, no, Linux 2.4 is not in beta yet.
  • Just out of curiosity, is it possible to link such a device to /dev/audio? It would be interesting to see what I could do with init, festvox, /dev/audio, and a winmodem if this is possible. (Voice mail, anyone?)
    However, if the line output capacity is purely hardwired, then I will know for certain why WinModems suck.
    Oh, one more thing: I hope we're mature enough not to even CONSIDER the concept of blue boxing with one of these things...

    --
  • A modem that has, basically, no hardware. All of the stuff the modem would be doing is handled by the CPU.

    It's basically a slot wasting piece of junk that provided an RJ45 jack and some software that is the guts of the device

  • Hey, wheel mouse support is not for low-end hardware! I got a wheel mouse recently because my ancient 2 button mouse's buttons were failing, and it rocks. I think all mice should've started coming with wheels ages ago, that way we'd have better linux application support now.

    They're just so intuitive... within one day after I got my wheel mouse on my linux box, I went to work and was trying to scroll on the SGIs by rubbing the middle mouse button... it's quite annoying whenever I'm on a machine without a wheel mouse now, because I use it to scroll so much.

    BTW, wheel mice are also great for leaning back while reading something... keyboard usually can't reach easily, but it's easy to just hold the mouse in your hand and scroll, since it's lighter than the keyboard, and sometimes has a longer cord)

  • Oh... I encountered a problem like that on my parents' win95a machine. It had a 28.8k modem, and was reporting as connecting at 2400 baud when it was clearly faster. I turned on the debugging log, looked, and it turned out that it was 24000 baud. The setting for 24000 baud was missing from the registry though. There's a section in the registry that lists all the modem connect messages, and then has a binary setting that includes the connect speed. I hacked the registry and added an entry for "CONNECT 24000" to report 24000 baud, and that fixed it. Try doing the same.
  • You make the mistaken assumption that just because something is in demands means that it will be coded and appear in 2.4. USB support has been in demand ever since the 2.0.x days, but I don't see any USB support worth mentioning in 2.2.x. Plug-n-Play is even older, wanted by many people (who wants to configure everything manually?), and still not done.

  • Get an external modem and hang it off your serial port... I agree that ISA is doomed and rapidly disappearing, IMHO there's really not much reason to develop "PnP".

  • >I imagine your point was to try and show that >just because Linux and other Unix-based OS's are
    >based on legacy code, does not mean they need to
    >be scrapped for something new. These analogies
    >you've offered just don't do much for your point.

    Linux doesn't use any legacy code either. Unlike commerical Unices and BSD's Linux is and allways has been written entirely from scratch. What the kernel and application developers have done is
    1. borrow solid ideas from supposedly legacy Unices and
    2. develop full POSIX compliency.

    All while writing everything from scratch.

    BeOS even has extereme if not full POSIX compliency, that's why it's so easy to port apps between the two OS's. So obviously BeOS is also based on outdated 30year technologies.
  • The magic word is "mod me down if you will..." and so such, your sorce will sour high after that.

    I had to say if even this is will be sorced down. ;)


    CY
  • It needs to be understood that Winmodems were designed to run under Windows ONLY (which means they CAN run under other operating systems, they're not designed to.) and because of the lack of a UART chip, the modem's functions are done in software. That software is A) For Windows, and B) different for every winmodem. Since it's not reasonable to write drivers for every winmodem on the market (just the popular ones maybe?), a good foundation is a good start. Let the companies/manufacturers worry about the rest.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • It bears repeating "Linux is 30 year old technology. It's just a notch above Luddism."
    Bob Metcalfe

    Does Billy pay you by the word? This blatant name-calling is making your side look worse by the day.

    Seriously though, this is good stuff. I'm glad there is an attempt to add support for more hardware and interfaces. One of the things that kept me from switching to Linux for the longest time was lack of "modern" hardware support. Nowadays, the map has changed. I have support for my 3Dfx card, my Zip drive, and my CD burner. And now there's an effort to improve on the hardware support even more.

    Face it: The ball's no longer in Microsoft's court in terms of hardware dominance. Many popular devices are already here (or in the works), and even if not, hardware companies are developing drivers for us. The stranglehold has been broken.

    And this why Linux (and FreeBSD, and the rest of the Open Source movement) is making a difference. We don't wait for dubious improvements to come from on high. We discuss what NEEDS to be in place, and we dig in and get to work.

    rivet

  • Re:It bears repeating (Score:4)

    by Analog ( 564 ) on Sunday August 01, 1999 @11:10AM (#1771884)
    Yeah, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'm getting tired of hearing this one. Besides, I thought I might have a little fun.

    Other old computing technologies -

    • Windowing GUIs
    • Mouse
    • Ethernet(!)
    • Object oriented programming
    • C programming language
    And speaking of old computing technology, have you checked to see what's running under Win98 lately?

    General technologies older than 30 years -

    • Telephone
    • Internal combustion engine
    • Jet aircraft
    • Light bulb
    • Electricity
    • Radio and television
    • Indoor plumbing
    Can I assume you don't lower yourself to using these old, outmoded technologies either?
  • well, as far as ISA PnP goes, I can do without, or do with what we already have (enough to get my sound card working). PCI is inherantly PnP, there are no recources to fight with (except when mobo manufactures make stupid assumptions about IRQ assignment). AGP is just an extention of PCI so it to is PnP. Scsi is alos PnP by design when you use SCAM. USB and firewire are alos PnP by design. This leaves ISA and Parallel connections that are not PnP. The parport driver does a relatively good job for parallel port. for ISA, dont toutch it with PnP. My bios sets up enough of my sound card to get it working relatively well without PnPtools in linux, and I will leave it that way. anyway, ISA slots are disapearing in computers, most mobo s only have 1 or 2 ISA slots, a year ago, they had 2 or 3, and a year befor that, 3 or 4. so ISA may become an exception rather then a rule (where will I put my modem). oh well....
  • Dave Cutler is the OS architect behind NT and before that VMS. I believe he is currently heading up the NT-64 project.
  • <slightly OT>
    It's interesting, Joe Pranevich's piece about what's new in Linux 2.4 at www.linuxtoday.org didn't make it to /., but when a crappy C|Net article, which is more or less a summary of Joe's article, appears -- that's news. One would think that us /. geeks would be more interested in Joe's, more technical and detailed article, than C|Net's easy-digestible version.

    I mean, the time when it instantly was "News for Nerd", whenever mainstream press (or something remotely resembling it) just mentioned Linux in an article is long gone. IMO Joe's article is much more NfN. Stm., than the C|Net one.
    </slightly OT>

    <extremely OT>
    Sorry, but I've always wondered: Why do C|Net have that pipe in their name (or is it just the logo)? What is it supposed to mean?
    &lt/extremely OT>
  • It's about bleedin' time they supported Winmodems.
    My experience with Winmodems under Windows 95 was numerous BSODs because the 486DX2-66 couldn't keep up. That's why I can't recommend them to anyone for a future purchase. Hopefully under Linux they don't dent the system load so badly.
    Now that support is imminent, we can take the advice of those like Big Daddy Dosland of Maximum PC magazine and do what we can to assist and train neophyte users. By answering all their questions, even the ones that might seem stupid, we pave the way for turning neophytes into gurus.
    And that, folks, goes a long way to make Linux and FreeBSD the dominant operating system of the future.
    --
  • ::USB in demand? By who? Pretty much the only people I've seen "demanding" USB "products" are the "computer jornalists" who write articles for Ziff-Davis mags. Tell us something. Exactly what is a USB keyboard or modem good for? Other than eating up your money that is....::

    Who is USB in demand by? Me. Do I use a USB keyboard? Hell no. Who wants to load a driver before you can type something? But some of the stuff USB does is pretty neato.

    I ran out of slots in my computer a long time ago. I ran out of IRQs just recently. My SCSI bus is full. So I got the last bit of internal hardware I think I'll need for a while: a USB controller. Trust me, when you're running a box as tightly packed as mine, the ability to string 127 devices off of ONE interrupt is a godsend. Another thing I use USB for? Game controllers. Ever since that brain-dead "standard" that put midi on the PC gameport, I have NEVER gotten a single gameport joystick or gamepad to keep a stable position. This ended with my USB controller. I have a Gravis Gamepad Pro USB that positively rocks ass, and a Saitek Cyborg 3D USB - an analog joystick that DOESN'T drift and DOESN'T miscalibrate.

    (On an unrelated tangent, the Gravis Gamepad Pro combined with a program called RB-Joy (from http://www.rbsoft.de/ - in German, but you should be able to figure it out without babelfish) is a fantastic usenet reading tool. Use the pad and button1/2 as your mouse, button 3/4 PgUp and PgDn, L1 and L2 next/prev message, R1 and R2 next/prev unread message, Start button switches to next thread. Pressing Select instantly plonks the originator of the current message =)
  • Tons of stuff is useful in USB. Not a modem or keyboard, of course, but USB digital cameras are nice (faster than parallel or serial port), USB gamepads are nice (you can daisy-chain 4 of them for multiplayer games), etc.
  • Well, it that case, might as well ditch X. We don't want the type of people too ignorant to use a command line to use Linux. Ditch RPM and DEB, we don't want people too ignorant to compile their own software using Linux either.

    As for nonwinmodems, the cheapest I've found is a US Robotics 33.6 for $50. The cheapest 56.6 nonwinmodem I've found is $95, compared to $20 for a winmodem. Most purchasers of sub-$800 PCs buy them because of the price, not because they have a preference as to what type of modem it has. As long as it gets them online, and saves them money, it's fine with them. I don't see a problem with that.

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close