Linux Kernel 2.6.4 Released

justinarthur writes "The Linux kernel version 2.6.4 has been released at 03:16 UTC. Included in the changes from version 2.6.3 are fixes to XFS support, Wide Area Networking, USB connectivity, and IEEE1394 connectivity. To download a copy, it is recommended that one utilizes a Linux Kernel Archives mirror. Linus Torvalds' announcement to the Linux Kernel Mailing list concerning this release is available here." Reader k-zed points out that Linux 1.0 was released in March 1994, ten years ago.

Slackers.

[grub]

Hmm.. I don't see it on ftp.sco.com yet. What lousy service for $699.

Re:Slackers.

[pe1rxq]

You better not tell them you were once a customer...
they seem to have developped a habit of suing them.

Jeroen

10 years?

[110010001000]

10 years and that guy is only on version 2?

Re:10 years?

[BabyDave]

For comparison, in 10 years Microsoft went from Windows 3.0 to Windows 2000! Clear proof that Microsoft's development process is far superior.

Think of it as version 26

[Chemisor]

In the OSS world, major releases are counted in the minor numbers, so 2.6 is what a commercial company would have called 26.

Re:Think of it as version 26

[Frit Mock]

26th release is the wrong answer! ;)

First of all, for Linux uneven numbers are development-versions.
Second the 1.X versions stopped at 1.3
Third, version 1.0 surely was not the 10th major release ... not even real swedish programmers begin counting at 0, like their programs do ;)

However, this truly is the forth Service Pack for the Linux 2.6 ... within a few month they fix more, than M$ ever fixed in w2k ;)

Re:Think of it as version 26

[Apiakun]

Wait...

There's a Forth [forth.org] Service pack for 2.6?

Sweet!

Re:10 years?

[happyfrogcow]

Finally, someone got a versioning scheme that held true and made sense. If only all "Version 2" software worked this well, we'd be blessed and probably have robots serving us Coronas and margaritas while we graze on a 7 layer dip and chips.

Re:10 years?

[niko9]

You woudn't happen to be the perpetrator who defrauded that young woman crdeit card, so you could build that "girl robot" for the prom?

Re:10 years?

[dohcvtec]

If only all "Version 2" software worked this well

Heh, the power of understatement. Although I think NetBSD is really the king of understatement - NetBSD is only at version 1.6.2, and it's been around for more than 10 years.

Re:10 years?

[jd]

Beats the GPL. That's been around 20-30 years, and is also on version 2.

2 is clearly the tar-baby of versions.

Re:10 years?

[TheTomcat]

According to this [dsl.org] , GPL v1.0 was released in 1989. RMS released the GNU Manifesto in 1985.

So, it HAS been around a long time, but not 20-30 years.

(and yes, I know it was a joke).

S

Yes but...

[Bilange]

Does it run Linux?

(Ok, sorry. I know its not funny anymore.)

Re:Yes but...

[AntiOrganic]

If you need to apologize in advance for a post it may have not been a good idea in the first place. ;)

Re:Yes but...

[xanadu-xtroot.com]

He/She/It didn't apologize in advance, it was in hindsight. If the post read:

(Ok, sorry. I know its not funny anymore.)
Does it run Linux?

Then that would be in advance.

Re:Oops!

[edbarrett]

There are good reasons to upgrade to 2.6, but no one is forcing you to (yet). I'm still sitting on 2.4 for now, but have used 2.6 a few times and GUI performance is indeed a lot smoother.

Speaking as a Debian Unstable user...

Y'know how apt tends to make X-Windows jerky and unresponsive? It doesn't happen with 2.6.3. Now if I can only figure out why the OSS modules are being autoloaded for my built-in VIA 82something-or-ther rather than the ALSA ones, I'll be all set.

Why yes it does!

[Medievalist]

usermode linux runs linux on linux.

So, the answer is yes.

Re:Why yes it does!

[david.given]

usermode linux runs linux on linux.

But can you run usermode Linux on usermode Linux?

More to the point, can you run usermode Linux on top of Line [sourceforge.net] on top of Windows?

Re:Why yes it does!

[beeblebrox87]

Yes, but you have to increment the nesting level in make menuconfig when you're building it, i.e. you need a UML specially compiled to run on other UMLs, or a UML compiled to run on other UMLs that run on other UMLs, etc.

Re:Yes but...

[D-Cypell]

Does it run Linux?

Give them time to work on the compatibility, this release is still pretty gnu. :o)

My 486 laptop...

[Anonymous Coward]

... hasn't even gotten finished compiling the last 2.6 kernel release *grumbling* *adding yet another patch to my to-do list*

Re:My 486 laptop...

[Cthefuture]

Heh, your comment and the 10 year thing made me think back.

I remember the old pre-1.0 days. I was running a 386DX-40 and it took around 45 minutes to compile the kernel. Back then the kernel was extremely small and it still took that long. Ah, the good old days.

I'm still amazed at how fast the kernel compiles nowadays. Whenever I recompile, somewhere in the back of my head I still think it's going to take 45 minutes even though it only takes like 2 minutes.

Just when...

[Cytlid]

... I was thinking "I don't need this kernel upgrade, 2.6.3 has been working great for me..." I find in the changelog:

[IRDA]: Add stir4200 driver.

doh... finally added support for one of my usb-irda dongles.

Damn.

Re:Just when...

[damballah]

Speaking of changelogs, this is the funniest one I've found so far for 2.6.4:

[PATCH] kthread primitive

From: Rusty Russell

These two patches provide the framework for stopping kernel threads to
allow hotplug CPU. This one just adds kthread.c and kthread.h, next
one uses it.

Most importantly, adds a Monty Python quote to the kernel.

Re:Just when...

[FueledByRamen]

Haha, I have a runner up here:

Maurice van der Stee noted that he got an oops on a HPFS filesystem when
saving an edited file..

<stares at the code>
<blinks>
<wonders whereTF do we assign hpfs1_i and hpfs2_i if both inodes are non-NULL>
<finds the patch in question>
<stares at jgarzik>

This fixes it. That, BTW, means that *nobody* had ever tried to use
hpfs r/w since 2.5.3-pre3.

Poor HPFS. Nobody ever loved you...

Re:Just when...

[Winter]

Could not find it in 2.6.4, but a patch to kernel/kthread.c to 2.6.1-rc1-bk6 shows these lines:

+/* "to look upon me as her own dad -- in a very real, and legally
+ binding sense." - Michael Palin */

Which is from the Holy Grail

Geek fun

[valentyn]

I found this Changelog entry rather funny. Looooong story about stir4200 driver - then another commit that adds stir4200.c:

[IRDA]: Add stir4200 driver.
After a long maturation, this is time to send you the latest
version of the stir4200 USB driver. Initially started by Paul Stewart,
modified by Martin Diehl and me, and later partially rewriten by
Stephen Hemminger.
The hardware has many quirks. This is the first version that
work reliably at SIR and mostly work at FIR. We may never get o

Re:Just when...

[jd]

I thought that added the much-needed support for the stir portion of the stir-fry system.

Re:Just when...

[Cytlid]

Actually you're wrong. I need the dongle to speak with my LG G4050 phone from Cingular because they claim it has data capabilities through irda, but there's nothing supporting that. Sure windows detects the device, but that's as far as being helpful as it goes. I even have IrComm2k (another GPL project) because the virtual IR com port support from the windows driver doesn't work correctly. Closest thing I can do is open a terminal in windows connected to that com port and try hit-and-miss ATA commands.

Did you know that..

[Anonymous Coward]

The name of this release amongst the core developers was "Heathen Chemistry.". Alan Cox came up with it - it's was inside joke about british pop/rock phenomenon.

Re:Did you know that..

[Anonymous Coward]

For those that don't know this is the name of Oasis [oasisinet.com]'s latest album.

remove SCO code

[Spetiam]

has there been any talk of removing the alleged SCO code? or rumors? i guess linus wouldn't make a statement about it now, since there's the lawsuit going on

Re:remove SCO code

[the_mad_poster]

i guess linus wouldn't make a statement about it now, since there's the lawsuit going on

I think the fact that SCO hasn't actually shown it bears more weight on it having not been removed. It's hard to remove something that isn't there, and it effectively isn't there unless SCO can actually show it to somebody.

Re:remove SCO code

[jd]

Although C supports comments, it doesn't have any markers for rumors. If any of the GCC development team are reading, maybe they should add some.

Re:remove SCO code

[neurojab]

>has there been any talk of removing the alleged SCO code?

If there were any SCO code, I'm sure Linus would love to remove it. The only code SCO has shown has been header files specified by POSIX and IBM copyrighted code. Never any SCO code.

Repeat after me: There is no SCO code in the Linux kernel. There never was. There never will be. Darl McBride and Chris Sontag are trying to take money from the gullible.

Re:remove SCO code

[ader]

<Chief Wiggum voice> Nice try, Darl.

Ack!

[MalaclypseTheYounger]

Oh no! Someone leaked their source! Call Microsoft, maybe they can help track down who leaked this to the internet...

oh, wait... nevermind.

Re:Ack!

[Bigby]

Maybe they can track it with Bill Gates's famous "email tracking" technology that was tested several years ago and is continually tested today.

PS: If I get that stupid email one more time...

new kernel

[tacocat]

Odd. I'm still stuck on my 2.4.xx version. I tried to upgrade a few distros to 2.6 and things didn't go very well (kernel panic)

It seems to me that the number of users who have picked up 2.6 x compared to the number that picked up 2.4 from 2.2 has greatly diminished on many of the distro mailing lists. From this it seems that either the migration is uglier than anticipated, or that more people are just willing to sit back and wait for their distro to provide them with all their needs.

Who will be the first to ship kernel 2.6 by default?

Re:new kernel

[Anonymous Coward]

Mandrake 10 is (look for the story from yesterday) Also you can get 2.6 from gentoo and debian, though not default

Re:new kernel

[damballah]

For MandrakeLinux 10, it is the default kernel. They also provide the latest from the 2.4 series, but you'll have to install that by hand. By "integration", they probably mean dropping devfsd in favor of udev... " I assumed the 2.6 was some addon I have to waste precious brain cells and time trying to figrure out how to install." Mandrake has had RPMs for the 2.6 series for some time now.

Re:new kernel

[peterf]

Some people are waiting for their distros to ship 2.6, but I think 2.4 is works for most users, there is no urgent need to upgrade.

This doesn't mean 2.6 won't be a success, I am sure it will be, but I think it means we have left the 'revolution' and joined the 'evolution'.

Re:new kernel

[DarkBlackFox]

2.6 does offer a number of improvements to 2.4 (as it should, being a later release), including native ATAPI (non-SCSI emulated) CDRW support (which a lot of new users get borked on and complain about), non-dangerous NTFS support (including writing, which is huge when migrating from Windows), much easier build process (simply 'make'), easier module selection layout, faster boot times, etc. etc.

I was happy as a clam switching to 2.6, and haven't looked back to 2.4 much since.

Re:new kernel

[TheTomcat]

- A responsive scheduler and preemptible kernel (sure, most users won't have a clue what it DOES, but they'll notice the difference).
- ALSA (in-kernel) -- for the first time I can remember on Linux, the mixer (non OpenSoundSystem) labels my inputs/outputs properly.

S

Re:new kernel

[TheTomcat]

O(1) basically means that each "operation" takes the same amount of time, no matter how many processes need a slice.. (at least that's how I understand it -- I'm no kernel hacker). Helps in responsiveness.

The preemption + the scheduler is what makes it, IMHO. When I click buttons, they click IMMEDIATELY, now (as fast, or faster than windows).

S

yup, agreed.

[garcia]

Yeah, I just mentioned to someone that I will likely be going to 2.6 once it goes above 2.6.5. I think I switched to 2.4 w/the pre kernels. It had some support that I wanted. 2.6 isn't offering anything that I desperately need.

I don't use Linux w/X, I don't really use it for much other tahn a webserver, IRC, and email. It's basically just a way for me to do IRC and email from work.

What advantages would I have using 2.6 with that setup?

Re:yup, agreed.

[Paladin128]

Depends on your hardware. If you're using SMP, it will help; the scheduler is a bit better. Also has better support for the P4/Xeon's Hyperthreading. Overall lower latency operation as well. udev is a nice upgrade from devfs. No need to use proprietary sound or ethernet drivers on an nForce platform. If you're dealing with LOTS of traffic, it will perform better under stress.

What hardware do you have?

Re:new kernel

[TheAcousticMotrbiker]

The Knoppix that came with the C'T from a month ago already had a 2.6 kernel.

Suse 9.0 came with a 2.6 kernel (though neither had them as a default)

did you report it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Copy down the numbers from the kernel panic.
I know it's a pain, but we really need this.
If you're terribly lazy, just get EIP, ESP,
and any names you see.

Mail that to [e-mail] and
expect a few questions about your hardware.

That's not so difficult, is it? This gets the
bug fixed so that the next release will run on
your system.

Re:did you report it?

[pe1rxq]

Without the symbol map the EIP and ESP values are pretty useless since they vary on compile time options (and even the compiler).

What is usefull is the EIP (and call trace) with together with the symbol table, or easier the 2.6 kernels have a build in back trace that spits out the function names itself. (If you want some fun do it yourself for once with the call trace and a symbol table, bonus points for doing hex math on a piece of paper instead of a calculator)
Just write down this list of functionnames and send it, that way the developpers immediatly known wath code path your pc took before going boom.

Jeroen

Re:new kernel

[Albanach]

I upgraded in a couple of hours after the last round of security issues. Got caught out by a couple of things that made one or other network card run, but not both. Still it didn't take more than booting back into 2.4, checking websites, recompile and reboot.

If you're running a kernel provided by your distro, you probably don't need the upgrade. Just apply security patches as they send them to you. If you run a kernel you built yourself, you probably know whether or not you need or want 2.6. I didn't need

Re:new kernel

[SQLz]

It seems to me that the number of users who have picked up 2.6 x compared to the number that picked up 2.4 from 2.2 has greatly diminished on many of the distro mailing lists.

Hmm, I heard the 2.6 adoption has been faster than any other version. The beta versions were like a testing phenonenom or something. People were testing 2.6 in droves compared to 2.4. I don't even know of anyone running 2.4 anymore actually. I mean, why not upgrade? The configuration is much cleaner and easier, its much more r

I tried it last night..

[schon]

I don't even know of anyone running 2.4 anymore actually. I mean, why not upgrade?

I finally got around to compiling 2.6.3 last night; ran into some issues.

its much more responsive than 2.4 for desktop use

The desktop is definitely more responsive, but (at least for me) at the expense of everything else. MPlayer, xmms, and anything that's remotely timing-intensive is unusable (xmms actually skips while playing MP3s, and Mplayer prints the message "Your computer is TOO SLOW to play this file" when playing anything I've got. Note that everything works fine under 2.4.)

I went through the various mailing lists looking for suggestions, with no luck; every suggestion is OK (checked drive DMA, kernel settings, X nice level, etc.) - interestingly enough, one post I read said to try glxgears.. I did, and it runs better under 2.6 - constant frame rate, regardless of what else I'm doing, whereas in 2.4, even moving the mouse drops the frame rate.)

So it's back to 2.4 for me. I'll probably try 2.6.4, to see if the situation has improved, but for the mean time, I'll stick with 2.4.

X nice level

[steveha]

Are you sure about the X nice level? Your symptoms sound exactly like what happened to me when I ran 2.6 for the first time, and my problem was the X nice level.

For 2.6, you want X to run at nice 0. Many Linux distros set X to nice -10 for kernel 2.4 and older, but for 2.6 that gums up the works.

Debian users can fix it like so:

dpkg-reconfigure xserver-common

Then, when it asks you what X nice level you want, set it to zero.

steveha

Re:I tried it last night..

[SQLz]

Make sure you have the RTC compiled in and that ALSA has RTC timing on and that should fix it.

Re:new kernel

[fiddlesticks]

Mandrake?

http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/10/communit y

Re:new kernel

[xheliox]

PS - I've been running 2.6 for well over a month on most of my boxes without any issues. Though I have noticed that some obscure drivers tend to be missing or broken.

Re:new kernel

[MeanSolutions]

The problem with Linux lately is the annoying lack of stability and binary backward compatability.

I have noticed very little, if anything, breaking when I moved from 2.4.21 to 2.6.x on SuSE 9.0, a distro compiled for and shipped with a 2.4 kernel.


For example, the new threading libraries break all sorts of applications until you recompile the apps against the new library. This is particularly painful with commercial applications or for companies that need to provide support.

Sun, IBM, HP, etc have all been able to enhance the functionality of their proprietary Unix systems without breaking binary compatability. It is a shame that the linux kernel people do not care to do so.


That has absolutely nothing to do with the kernel "Linux". That has to do with updates to glibc and pthreads libraries. There is nothing preventing you from running a glibc2.1 with a kernel 2.0.5, 2.2.10, 2.4.18 or 2.6.4 running on top of it.

wow!

[matticus]

this is the first time i've installed the kernel and had it running before the slashdot announcement!
i just checked the new one after lunch. blasted centrino ultralights need all this new stuff in them.
I think i'll go celebrate "I beat slashdot's unnecessary kernel release announcement day!"

Reiser4

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder if we'll see reiser4 [namesys.com] in 2.6.
You can test it now [namesys.com], but it is very experimental.

Maybee they'll merge it with 2.7

Re:Reiser4

[flatface]

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=145329 [gentoo.org] - Release candidate, but has reiser4 (among other things) if you don't want to put it in yourself. Gentoo not required.

Re:Reiser4

[jd]

Experimental (adj): More stable than Windows, but might need patching at some point, in your attempt for the world-record uptime.

Augh!

[asit+ler]

I haven't gotten 2.6.3 compiled yet, and here comes 2.6.4. Hell, I'm still running 2.6.0-gentoo. What's with this heightened release schedule? I mean, gcc is only so fast on my machine.

Fixes my ICH5 SATA Problems

[xheliox]

2.6.4-rc1 ChangeLog:

[libata] catch, and ack, spurious DMA interrupts

Hardware issue on Intel ICH5 requires an additional ack sequence over and above the normal IDE DMA interrupt ack requirements. Issue described in post to freebsd list: http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-stable@freebsd .org/msg58421.html

Since the bug workaround only requires a single additional PIO or MMIO read in the interrupt handler, it is applied to all chipsets using the standard libata interrupt handler.

Credit for research the issue, creating the patch, and testing the patch all go to Jon Burgess.
---------

Woo, this is very exciting. If you had problems with SATA & ICH5... this probably fixes those problems.

Re:Fixes my ICH5 SATA Problems

[DarkBlackFox]

Fixed a number of bugs in SCSI from 2.6.3 too- I heard of a lot of people (myself included) having trouble with K3b with SCSI/USB/Firewire cd burners, locking up and such.

K3b fired up perfectly the first time with 2.6.4-rc2, and I'm looking forward to the expanded firewire support in 2.6.4 final, it's compiling right now. Great to have such a dedicated community which stands by their work and fixes problems so quickly!

just add love...

[encrypted]

all it needs now is some love [linuxmall.us] and it'll be ready for my machine.

Version

[An-Unnecessarily-Lon]

I am waiting on 2.6.4.5.4.333a I hear there will be good things with that.

Cumulative Change Log

[Bobulusman]

Is there a handy place to find a listing of ALL changes since 2.6.0? I missed the change logs for a couple version and am trying to figure out if my nforce2 stuff was ever added (wasn't in 2.6.1).

Re:Cumulative Change Log

[Kourino]

No.

There are separate change logs for each kernel release in the kernel download directory, though.

Partitioning md devices

[rpozz]

Finally they've included mdpart. This means anyone with a SATA RAID motherboard can use its full potential. Excellent :-)

Is ALSA still broken?

[unsinged int]

2.6.2 => 2.6.3 completely broke ALSA on my system. I haven't seen any ALSA patches go in after 2.6.3. Anybody have info on that? Is there another big ALSA merge coming soon?

Re:Is ALSA still broken?

[BillyBlaze]

Between kernel 2.6.2 and 2.6.3, ALSA 1.02c got merged, and that broke stuff. (I was having problems too.) For me, upgrading to to ALSA 1.03 worked. This would have been in time for 2.6.4, but the -rc kernels were already out, so no big patches could be accepted. Unzip the alsa tarball to /usr/src, and do

cd /usr/src
cp -a alsa/alsa-kernel/* linux/sound
cp -a alsa/alsa-kernel/include/* linux/include/sound
cp -a alsa/alsa-kernel/Documentation/* linux/Documentation/sound

before configuring and compiling the

How many have upgraded and then gone back?

[steelerguy]

So I went to the 2.6 series when they first came out. I was very happy with it at work, there was a noticable bump in speed...mainly in starting applications.

At home it was another story. Sure the speed increases I noticed at work were still there but there were some fairly large problems.

First, neither my DVD reader or CD burner were assigned /dev entries. So no reading CD's, DVD, or writing CD's. I honestly don't do it that much anyway, so I didn't spend a lot of time trouble shooting it. Plus after a day at work trouble shooting problems I don't feel like doing it at home.

Second, I have not been able to mount my USB flash drive. It is an MP3 player which I changed CD's on weekly so I am not listening to the same stuff at the gym every day. Well after a few weeks of Outkast it was time for a change so I sat down to fix the problem. Two hours later, I just went back to the 2.4 kernel.

I have gotten as far as getting the kernel to assign sda to my usb device but it never creates an entry in /dev and the /sys stuff is not mountable. Enabling USB debugging just shows me that things are messed up but does not really help much.

I also started to get annoyed with all the SCSI emulation needed to mount a USB storage device. I don't understand how Linus can hate SCSI emulation so much when it comes to burning CD's yet it is perfectly acceptable to use it to mount a USB disk. Seems a bit hypocritical, but then again...he did sort of invent Linux so I guess I can cut him some slack.

So all in all, I have been disappointed in the 2.6.x series of kernels and if they are the one's that are supposed to take the desktop market by storm then I think Linux on the desktop is in trouble. It is no wonder Redhat and SuSE are staying away from it for the most part right now. It is going to take both of them a lot of work to get everything working properly I would imagine.

Am I the only one who went back?

Re:How many have upgraded and then gone back?

[Anonymous Coward]

Supposedly, USB Mass Storage is basically SCSI protocols piped over USB, so it requires SCSI emulation.

Re:How many have upgraded and then gone back?

[Abcd1234]

Are you using devfs? Did you try to migrate to udev (since devfs is deprecated)? Did you try to manually create those device entries and just use them, so you can at least make sure the device drivers work?

As for /sys, you compiled sysfs into the kernel, right? If so, it should be automatically mounted (well, at least, it is on my box). You also need the following fstab entry, in order to mount usbfs:

none /sys/bus/usb usbfs defaults 0 0

Re:How many have upgraded and then gone back?

[Abcd1234]

How is this a troll? I honestly don't care. I use Linux at home. Does it matter to me if my entire block uses Linux? No. Does it matter to me if my mother uses Linux? No. I. Don't. Care. If people can use Linux to solve their problems, great. Fantastic. If Windows is a better tool for others, good for them. Why should I give a damn what operating system they use? I don't care if my neighbour uses Linux any more than I care if they prefer Ford over Chevy, or they prefer teflon cookware over stain

Re:How many have upgraded and then gone back?

[KingJoshi]

No, I did the same. For me, it's accumulation of little issues. my touchpad, wireless, and other stuff I forget about. I'm sure I'll try again soon enough, but doing so eats time. It's not as though 2.4.25 has been anything for me to be disappointed about.

Re:How many have upgraded and then gone back?

[Abcd1234]

Try installing the hotplugging stuff and configure it to set the proper permissions on your scanner device. Or, alternatively (this is far less secure, but if you're behind a firewall, it's probably not a big deal), set up saned and have it run as root, then access the scanner through saned instead.

Help me understand...

[GooberToo]

...why kernels are still not offered up via torrents yet?

Seems like it would help a lot.

Right now, I can't even connect to a use mirror. Grrr.

Nforce2 APIC issues still not resolved :-(

[motown]

Even Kernel 2.4.6 still locks up frequently on my Asus A7N8X Deluxe motherboard unless I specify the options "noapic nolapic" at boot time. Then the system runs flawlessly (even with ACPI-support).

I read somewhere that the problem currently lies in the BIOS, rather than in the kernel, and that some vendors have already released proper BIOS updates that add a "C1 disconnect" option, which supposedly does the trick.

Unfortunately, Asus has released no such update as of yet.

Does anyone here (perhaps one of the kernel developers involved) have any more details on this?

Can this problem eventually be solved in the kernel, even without any BIOS updates?

After all, as far as I understood it, the BIOS pretty much takes a back seat as soon as the kernel is running, right?

Re:In 94, I was using Windows 3.1

[jcupitt65]

Linux is just the kernel. You'll find the NT kernel hasn't changed that dramatically recently either.

Maybe you mean the desktop experience? That's provided by KDE/GNOME/fluxbox whatever, and it's very clear what innovation is going on there if you look at KDE 3.2 vs KDE 1 (for example).

Re:In 94, I was using Windows 3.1

[Astatine]

Aren't you confusing kernel and distribution? Microsoft Windows is like a distribution (it's a complete running system). How different are Slackware 1 and Slackware 9 for instance?

If you looked at what's happened to the NT kernel during those 10 years, I reckon it would also look like "10 years of incremental patches". Apart from the graphics renderer turning up in it, that is ;-)

Re:In 94, I was using Windows 3.1

[mslinux]

Dude, this is the *kernel* it's not a GUI...

Take a look at KDE and Gnome over the years and you'll see how they've become more idiot proof with each release. They're a hell of a lot younger than the Windows GUI, but IMO, they're at Windows 98/ME level of user friendliness and gaining quickly on XP and Mac OS X.

Re:In 94, I was using Windows 3.1

[vivek7006]

They're a hell of a lot younger than the Windows GUI, but IMO, they're at Windows 98/ME level of user friendliness and gaining quickly on XP and Mac OS X.

I dont think so. I have a dual-boot laptop running XP-pro and linux with KDE3.2. IMHO, KDE 3.2 is way better than XP-pro. KDE has long overtaken windows as far as user friendliness is concerned.

Re:In 94, I was using Windows 3.1

[FictionPimp]

Its kinda funny, I run windows on one of my machines, and I'm constantly installing patches. Not to mention my 3 BIG patches the ones that cost me a hundred or so dallors. My 98 - 2000 patch and my 2000 to xp patch. The process is still the same, the only difference is the linux changes come bit by bit instead of in a bulk jump on a cd. Personally, i would rather get my updates in small increments. That why I can pick and choose what updates I want. If 2.6.4 doesnt add anything I need, maybe I'll hold off

Re:In 94, I was using Windows 3.1

[bigjocker]

Or ... maybe linux developers don't care for Joe user. I know, you are a troll, but to the mods that made you insightful (since the comment per se isn't) goes this:

Linux is a lot more than a set of "incremental patches". It has been rewritten over and over, not completely but large chunks at a time. Linux will never beat Windows un the Joe User category, because that's not the objective. If Linux was ever to become the prevalent OS I'm pretty sure most of us would stop using it. Not because we're a bunch o

Re:In 94, I was using Windows 3.1

[Nadir]

You sound like a troll, but I'll bite.
You don't have to tinker. You don't need to know what kernel version you're running. Get a modern distro and it will be the same thing as running your "innovative" Windows XP. You're also missing the fact that the kernel is only a small portion of the entire system. And the amount of tinkerability you have with Windows XP is nothing. You have no control on the low level stuff

Re:In 94, I was using Windows 3.1

[JimDabell]

Now, I'm using XP, and it's easy to see how 10 years of development have consistently innovated-not in a direction I'd like, and not in a safe or secure manner, but it's innovation.

Incremental improvements inspired by others is not innovation. What great new features have Microsoft ever introduced to the world? It has to be more than a couple to claim the status of "consistently innovating".

What has Linux got but 10 years of incremental patches?

Things like ReiserFS? Major sections of the kernel have been completely rewritten since 1.0. The scheduler, the module loading system, the /dev handling (static /dev to devfs to udev), the network subsystem. Anybody even remotely familiar with the kernel wouldn't make the claim you are making.

I feel the "if it's open source, it's perfect" ideology

That's a straw man argument. People don't claim that open source automatically makes something perfect.

is the reason Windows is still the desktop OS of choice.

Desktop OS of choice for some people. It's certainly not the desktop OS choice for me.

Linux fanatics need to be able to step back and look objectively at Linux's many flaws

Zealots of any kind aren't objective. But people who use and develop Linux at home or work are not automatically zealots as you seem to be implying.

Re:In 94, I was using Windows 3.1

[Angstroem]

May I ask in what way those 10 years of development "have consistently innovated"?

What else than "incremental patches" does Microsoft deliver, especially in the days where there is no week with new IE and OE exploits being announced and eventually (after months) being fixed?

The reason why "Windows is still the desktop OS of choice" is just because it comes preinstalled with any vanilla PC you can buy out there. Because it will run the games people copy from their friends. Because it runs Microsoft Office.

If Microsoft released Office for Linux I'm more than sure that numerous offices will switch to Linux and if it's just to escape the virus race which cost them plenty of time, money, and nerves.

Re:In 94, I was using Windows 3.1

[jd]

Linux has 10 years of incremental extensions, there are relatively few patches. (Indeed, even version 0.01 has only got one actual bugfix released for it.)

There is a difference between extension and patch (bugfix) in that extensions are entirely optional. If you don't need anything in Linux 2.x, then you are perfectly able to run Linux 1.x or even 0.x.

"But I can do that with Windows!"

Not really. You cannot (in general) run a Windows NT program on Windows 3.11, as Windows 3.x is a 16-bit OS, whereas NT

Re:updating the kernel - Is it necessary?

[molarmass192]

Yes new kernel releases are only for hardcore users. Joe Schmoe *should* be using a distro SuSE, Fedora, Mandrake, whatever, and rely on their patch releases. Updating the kernel can be tricky and I'd hope non-hardcore users wouldn't attempt it.

Re:Ready for the desktop?

[smoking2000]

it takes 30 minutes to install a service pack (which can change any functionality in windows, so it's a comparable procedure)

This is not quite true, Windows does not run on as many architectures as Linux does.

Look at the new Debian installer, it takes alot of time to "get it right", only because it has to work on so many architectures.

I think this is the same reason why there is no 1-click upgrade procedure or something for Linux.

It doesn't mean it's impossible, I think it's just damn hard to creat

Re:Ready for the desktop?

[Knuckles]

I can't remember to ever have upgraded the kernel on my windows machine. Hm, thinking of it, this may be because MS does not allow me to download new kernels from their kernel repository. I they did, it wouldn't be newbie-proof either. Therefore, your comment makes no sense whatsoever.

"Normal people" wait (and rightly so) for new packages coming from their distributor (Fedora, SuSE, Mandrake, ...). Using the distribution's tool for software upgrades is, last time I checked, nearly as newbie-proof as possib

Re:Ready for the desktop?

[13Echo]

You should almost *never* need to upgrade your kernel from the one that comes with your current distribution, assuming you are using a reasonably modern distribution...

This is why new kernels are "bleeding edge" for people that want to play until the distributions release them officially. This kernel release has *nothing* to do with why people are put off from using Linux. In fact, since 1997, when I've started using Linux, I've NEVER once upgraded my kernel because the official "standard" kernels have a

Ummm, apt-get?

[misleb]

There is a high proportion of posts here (when I'm writing this, at least) highlighting the difficulties of upgrading the kernel to 2.6.4. Surely, until there's an easy and foolproof way of doing this, the up-take of linux as a desktop OS is going to be slower. Whether microsoft do a better job in windows is debatable, but the bottom line is, it takes 30 minutes to install a service pack (which can change any functionality in windows, so it's a comparable procedure), and after the upgrade, 99.9% of machines

Re:Ready for the desktop?

[MrNybbles]

drwtsn32 wrote,

apt-get update && apt-get upgrade

That is not normally enough to get a 2.6.x kernel working correctly with the rest of the system.

Debian Distros Only!

First edit your apt sources file so you are upgrading to unstable. (Insert Windows Joke Here!) (I don't know offhand if any other Debian branch has the right stuff for Linux Kernle 2.6.x)

apt-get update && apt-get install module-init-tools && apt-get upgrade

apt-get upgrade may not upgrade module-init-tools for some reason. You might also want to run "apt-get install udev" if you have the hotplug stuff built into your kernel. Other things may need to be done for your system. This was enough for mine.

The debian command dselect may do a better job of Upgrading your debian system as far as conflict resolution is concerned, but I really don't like the user interface to it. If you want to know more about debian packages check out http://www.debian.org/distrib/packages.

A complete Debian 2.4.x to 2.6.x upgrade guide would be nice. Anyone know of one?

Re:Gentoo Ebuilds avalible

[Bigby]

How do they get by making them experimental? How is this ebuild any different than the 2.6.3 ebuild? All it does is download and extract the archive. You still have to configure and install yourself.

Re:fixes to XFS support?

[InsaneGeek]

Well then, click the link for changelog and search for XFS and see if they matter.

(A quick check shows that they don't appear to be "bad stuff" type of fixes)

Re:USB Blues

[MrNybbles]

I'm sure the Kernel people were serious about USB and IEEE1394 from the start. The problem is that they can get things to run perfectly on their own machines and other people will still have problems. How do you check for problems on hardware you don't have access to? I guess all they can do is releace a stable kernel and wait for the bug reports to come in.

Re:Anyone know what Rusty is talking about here?

[Svennig]

And the quote is:

/* "to look upon me as her own dad -- in a very real, and legally binding sense." - Michael Palin */