Linux Kernel v2.6.23 Released 346
diegocgteleline.es writes "After 3 months, Linus has released Linux 2.6.23. This version includes the new and shiny CFS process scheduler, a simpler read-ahead mechanism, the lguest 'Linux-on-Linux' paravirtualization hypervisor, XEN guest support, KVM smp guest support, and variable process argument length. SLUB is now the default slab allocator, there's SELinux protection for exploiting null dereferences using mmap, XFS and ext4 improvements, PPP over L2TP support. Also the 'lumpy' reclaim algorithm, a userspace driver framework, the O_CLOEXEC file descriptor flag, splice improvements, a new fallocate() syscall, lock statistics, support for multiqueue network devices, various new drivers, and many other minor features and fixes. See the changelog for details."
You know the drill... (Score:4, Funny)
On a more serious note, are these improvements dramatic, or is story featured just because it's the newest Lolnus kernel?
Re:You know the drill... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You know the drill... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You know the drill... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't use "meme" as a euphemism for "cliché".
Cliches seem like an excellent example of memes actually.
They have heredity - the actual text of the cliche. E.g. "In Soviet Russia X verb Y", or "In Korea only old people do X".
They are subject to natural selection as popular memes will replicate faster by definition.
They have mutations - random(ish) changes, typos or non sequitur that add humour. They even have sexual repoduction since memes can be combined for humorous effect. E.g. in a story about dogs attacking people in North Korea I could quip "In S
Methinks... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Methinks... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You know the drill... (Score:5, Funny)
I can has new scheduler?
I had new scheduler but Linus eated it
Boom. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Boom. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.zbs.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=2&products_id=34
That was a classic.. I should listen to that ZBS production again.
Re:Boom. (Score:5, Funny)
SO EXCITED! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:SO EXCITED! (Score:5, Funny)
Yay upgrade! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
we dont like guests from xen (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, what they don't mention is that the XEN "guest support" is in the form of a crowbar.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What about the license? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What about the license? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the foreseeable future, Linux will be under the GPLv2 license. A lot of Linux code is only available under that license, and isn't forward compatible without developer permission. Given that many Linux devs either won't give permission or can't be located (died, stopped contributing, whatever), relicensing will be a major effort, even if leaders were so inclined. Basically, if Linux goes GPLv3, you'll hear about it at least 6 months in advance, and probably weekly during those 6 months if you read Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Relicensing existing code might be too strenuous, but if many developers decide to follow this dual-licensing approach, the relicens
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BSD license does not allow you to relicense the code. On the contrary, it states that the terms and conditions and legal notices must be retained in full. Under copyright law, any right not explicitly granted is reserved.
Re: (Score:2)
I say that because Linus has said he doesn't mind GPL v3 (his problem was with earlier drafts).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Answer: Linux will never be GPL3. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm doing a (free) operating system based on GPL3 (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like Linux) for x86. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I'd like any feedback on things people like/dislike in Linux, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things).
I've currently ported bash(3.2) and gcc(4.2.2), and things seem to work. This implies that I'll get something practical within a few months, and
I'd like to know what features most people would want. Any suggestions are welcome, but I won't promise I'll implement them
PS. Yes - it's free of any Linux code, and it has a multi-threaded fs. It is NOT protable (uses 386 task switching etc), and it probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks, as that's all I have
Re:Answer: Linux will never be GPL3. (Score:5, Funny)
Why do that much work? (Score:5, Funny)
Just take OpenBSD and re-release it under the GPLv3!
Re:Why do that much work? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why do that much work? (Score:4, Funny)
Any takers?
Re:Answer: Linux will never be GPL3. (Score:5, Funny)
Of course you realize that no project which launches with that kind of announcement could ever expect to succeed.
I mean, really. What are the chances?
Re:Answer: Linux will never be GPL3. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Answer: Linux will never be GPL3. (Score:5, Informative)
The copyright holder can license the code however he damn well pleases.
Re:Answer: Linux will never be GPL3. (Score:5, Informative)
This has been done before.. with the syscall interface exception.
Stop repeating myths and do some research.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Answer: Linux will never be GPL3. (Score:4, Informative)
But that wasn't the point of my post.. the point of my post was to stop the meme that the license can't be changed. It can. Or, at least, Linus has said it can, and that should be good enough, cause if he thinks it can be changed and there is a reason to change it, then he will, and we'll be having a different discussion.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
pulling legally dubious licensing crap (e.g. the xfree86 non GPL compatible license which is a problem because nearly every X app links against X libriaries and the shift of large parts of cdrtools to the GPL incompatible CDDL while the rest was still under the GPL) is a damn good way to get your project forked and lose your influence.
Re:Answer: Linux will never be GPL3. (Score:5, Informative)
What Linus said was "I was impressed in the sense that it was a hell of a lot better than the disaster that were the earlier drafts. I still think GPLv2 is simply the better license." [lkml.org]
A couple days later, he expresses more angst with the GPLv3 and the FSF [lkml.org].
The bottom line is
Re:Answer: Linux will never be GPL3. (Score:4, Informative)
Really, he said that [lkml.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
are you implying there is something wrong with re-evaluating circumstances and utilizing other OSS?
The biggest mistake one can ever make is attempting to make simple statements permanent regardless of how the environment around it changes.
Cue CFS/SD Benchmarks (Score:2, Insightful)
I love my Thinkpad (Score:3, Interesting)
Woot!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Although it's not merged yet, Thinkpad owners should also check out this project:
http://tpctl.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Using the tp_smapi driver I can, among other things, clamp my battery charger to
stop at 70%, which makes the battery last a _lot_ longer. =)
What about O_CLOEXEC for sockets? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, this is a good thing. However, they seem to have missed some: sockets and pipes. Sockets are not close-on-exec by default, so you may pass a sensitive socket to a child.
Windows NT has the same problem: sockets are inheritable by default until you call SetHandleInformation to disable inheritance. Other handles' inheritability is selected at open/create time.
Luckily, there is a workaround for it, if not pretty: use a reader/writer lock with opening handles as writers and forks as readers.
By the way, the linked changelog on kernelnewbies.org has a bad link for the "recommended LWN article".
For the SELinux thing against null pointer attacks, won't that break DOSemu?
Re:What about O_CLOEXEC for sockets? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pipe endpoints are bound together when created, so that might be a problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the child already got a file descriptor for the socket, it doesn't matter what state it was in at that exact time. The file descriptor does not go away, the child will still have the file descriptor by the time you are doing something sensitive on that socket. Looking back I think it was a design mistake to make file descriptors inherited across exec by de
Linux catches up to Windows 2000? (Score:4, Interesting)
I was about to go and make fun of Linux for creating a feature that's been around in Windows for quite a while - take your pick of SetFilePointer or sparse files. Yes, yes, I understand that reserving space for a file is not the same as growing it and not using that space. Twas meant to be a troll....But, it turns out that a bit of googling reveals that sparse files under Windows are not all that they are cracked up to be:
http://www.flexhex.com/docs/articles/sparse-files.phtml [flexhex.com]
Userspace drivers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Userspace drivers? (Score:5, Interesting)
Long answer: if NVIDIA ever makes open source drivers, they will almost definitely be kernel space drivers. Apparently this is in the works, same with ATI, but I'll believe it when it happens. It would be possible for some bored hacker to take the NVIDIA binary blobs and make a userspace driver from them. This driver could be legally distributed with the NVIDIA binary blobs (probably). And yes, this would mean that recompiling the drivers for a new kernel would not be necessary.. and it would also mean that the kernel wouldn't be "tainted" by using this driver (maybe).
I, personally, think the stability and security advantages of running binary blobs in userspace drivers outweighs the possible performance hit (no-one has measured the performance hit, yet), so it's a good idea. But, ya know, I've got some other stuff to do...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The real Linux news today. (Score:5, Interesting)
real Linux news from 2 weeks ago (Score:5, Informative)
Hot (Score:5, Funny)
Linux on linux, that's so hot!
1995 (Score:3, Funny)
Telling readers that links are meant to be clicked is so 1995!
Personally I'll wait for the SP1 release (Score:3, Funny)
Dreamcast support (Score:3, Interesting)
More dreamcast support is on the way - expect some more stuff in 2.6.24 and 2.6.25 and I (the author of the code) would love to hear from willing testers, etc
Re: (Score:2)
I have to say this is a pretty big batch of changes. I'm actually really interested to see how the new scheduler performs. Oh well, time to go update my Linux box...
*prays to god that random hacked up drivers keep working*
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If meant that you want a precompiled kernel, you should wait until your distro offers a package.
On the other hand, if you want to try the new kernel now, you have to build it yourself.
Many users complain that the "make-based" compiling is too difficult, hence distros usually offer some kernel building facility. Check your documentation - or google.
Here's how I'm building the new kernel right now on a Debian system:
cd /usr/src/linux-2.6.22.9/
ketchup -r 2.6
make-kpkg --initrd --append-to-version=`date +%d%m%y` kernel_image
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
In other news... Arch barfed on me when trying to install on some super new hardware. Specifically speaking: Intel DQ35JO motherboard with SATA optical and hard drive. Only Ubuntu and Slackware managed to install out of 4 distros tried.
But again, "Informative Offtopic". Back on topic, having just compiled the previous 2.6.23rc with Slack 12 it still barfed when booting. So, I for one welcome 2.6.23.1!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll bite.
Your point that usability is important is true. However, your implication that progress in the kernel prevents progress elsewhere is questionable. There are plenty of people working on usability and creating new desktop interfaces. I'd argue that a current installation of Ubuntu, installed on cooperative hardware, is quite easy to use. But there's no need to sacrifice the underlying elegance or power of Linux to get there -- the shell shouldn't be "hard to find", just unnecessary for most peo
Re:Ummm. Neat. (Score:5, Insightful)
I just think in order to get Linux adopted by the populous, it's going to take more than kernel enhancements to see that through.
But see, the problem is that nobody's arguing that kernel enhancements alone *are* going to result in the rise of desktop-Linux-for-the-masses. What you're doing is akin to walking into a university campus that's just expanded a bit and proclaiming how they're not doing enough to save the baby whales. Yes, some of the facilities and information dispersed therein may be getting used by people looking to save the baby whales, and some of the staff may even be interested in saving the baby whales themselves, but the university is not in fact there to save the baby whales, but instead serve as general resource that can be utilized in a number of different and often drastically divergent ways.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is about a new release of the kernel, it's not about the desktop experience, or ease of use, or anything along those lines. They're totally separate topics.
Re:Ummm. Neat. (Score:5, Insightful)
computing was supposed to automate. supposed to make everyones lives easier by helping the person. now look at it. walk into any corporate office and you'll see countless people (myself included) clicking on this and that to satisfy what the computer wants out of you. it feels like you are there to help the computer achieve uptimes, or defragged disks, getting rid of viruses, blocking ports, unblocking ports...
am i there to help the computer do it's job? or is the computer there to help me do mine?
why does the computer occupy the center of my desk? why isn't it tucked away in the utility closet?
but that's a more philosophical discussion to be had - under the influence
Re:Ummm. Neat. (Score:4, Insightful)
As with any other tool this means that it has to be somewhere you can get at it(on your desk) and that you need to know how to use it(ask anyone who has never used a hammer before to pound in a nail and see how many times they stuff it up).
Now you might argue that a computer is a lot harder to use than a hammer, but that's mostly because it's metaphorically a bit more like a toolbox. It has tools within it to perform specific tasks as opposed to doing only one task(historically this has had to do with cost, but as we see comodotized hardware prices this may change). When you have a toolbox full of tools, you not only need to know how to use the individual tools, you also need to know how to find them in the toolbox, how to properly and safely remove them from and return them to the toolbox, as well as how to perform any required maintainence to your toolbox.
In the same way in order to use your finance application(the tool), you need to know how to find it and run it as well as how to actually use it. Someone(not necessarily you) also needs to know how to put the tool where you can get it in the first place(install the software), clean the gunk out of the toolbox(maintain the PC) and to transfer all your tools from an old toolbox to a new toolbox when your old one falls apart, or you need one which can hold more tools.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. You service the computer, so that the computer can service the rest of us. Until such time as a computer is created that requires
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Linux has a steep learning curve
Re:Ummm. Neat. (Score:5, Informative)
"It takes a specific type of person to get Linux running and to a point where it can be productive even for nontechnical users (which is the majority of users that use computers)"
WTF???
Linux installation for dummies, PHBs and Windows sysadmins (but I repeat myself)
If you can't follow that, print it out and pay some PFY* in grade 9 $20.00 to help you.
(if you don't recognize the reference, you're obviously new here and deserve to be beaten with a clue-by-four, both ways, in the snow, etc...)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That of course doesn't mean the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny, the same is true of Vista.
Maybe you should be laying blame where it's due: the hardware manufacturers.
You've cited the wrong problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
Keeping it running gets interesting.
I am not a Linux guru, but I've been writing how-to articles on Linux for the last 3 years.
I have a fairly standard sort of setup, a Biostar GeForce 6100 AM2 integrated motherboard with Nvidia chipset and Athlon 64x2/4200 and 2G DDR2.
The normal procedure for installing a new nvidia video driver is:
# aptitude remove nvidia
# aptitude install nvidia[version compatible with kernel version]
Easy en
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no reason you can't have 2 or more compilers on the same machine. I used to have both 2.95 and 3.something_or_other, no problems (I kept 2.95 around for a while because of the bugs in 2.96)
Re:Ummm. Neat. (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot is a technical community so my comment may not be well received.
No, your comment won't be well received because it has nothing at all to do with the article or the Linux kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But graphic UI's are the future of computing and I think it's high time for a distribution to make it HARD to find the shell in an OS.
In the ideal OS, finding the shell would be *easy*, not hard. I think what you mean to say is, "...day-to-day 'regular user' tasks would not involve using the shell." Hiding any end-user application is stupid.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people use the shell because it is fast and easy. It is as if they finally get it. Those that don't want to use the shell, don't have to. They just won't be able to do everything as easily. But as for being a user, it is quite simple to configure everything from the desktop, do your work from the desktop, and not even see a shell. Mandrake (mandriva) has had
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ummm. Neat. (Score:4, Insightful)
"But graphic UI's are the future of computing and I think it's high time for a distribution to make it HARD to find the shell in an OS."
You can have my shell when you pry it from my cold dead hands - same as my keyboard!
Most distros come with multiple GUIs, and those GUIs are superior to anything Redmond can put out. Add that to the ability to run Windows in a window (where it belongs, if it belongs at all on your box), and mp3 and dvd installers a click away in the newest distros, 21 gigs of software free for the downloading, faster release/bugfix/update cycles ... if you want a GUI, you can have your pick.
But do NOT take away my terminals. There are a lot of things that are quicker to do in a term than with a clicky interface. Have you not heard of "the right tool for the job"?
Re:Ummm. Neat. (Score:4, Insightful)
Usability is a problem for the desktop maintainers ( the KDE or GNOME guys ), not the kernel hackers.
Added bonus, the desktop maintainers can be OS agnostic if they like, so the usability gains that linux sees can easily transfer to BSD or OpenSolaris, should they turn out to be better kernels overall
Re:Ummm. Neat. (Score:5, Insightful)
Would it surprise you to find out that most of the community agrees with that statement? .. With one caveat, however: You're confusing Linux, the opreating system kernel, with the rest of a complete system. If we were discussing one of the *BSDs, I'd not balk, but there is a huge difference between Linux and what you're talking about. Linux runs behind the scenes and has nothing whatsoever to do with usability or even UIs.
The last thing you want to do is hide functionality - especially necessary functionality - from users. All Apple did was wrap a Mach kernel under a NeXT-ish facade and hide the majority of the more "advanced" features. IMO, there's no reason to make the shell go away, but rather to set it aside in a non-intrusive and logical place - exactly how most current distributions set it up. You can still get to a terminal emulator in OS X - it's harder, sure, but it's still trivial to make it readily accessible - and it uses BASH, a powerful and quite useful shell. By contrast, on Windows, it's not obvious where the shell is right away, and once you know where it is, you quickly find it's limiting and hard to use - if you're an advanced user, it's useless.
It's quite unified. There's surprisingly little fragmentation in the community (save for Vim/Emacs and KDE/Gnome zealots), and a lot is accomplished daily. We have, right now, not one but ten (more?) advanced, powerful, and very usable desktop environments (including Gnome and KDE); a constantly improving graphical server that now supports advanced 3D effects, render acceleration, compositing, and multiple pointers (new! for multi-touch displays and the like a la iPhone); powerful multimedia features that audiophiles and videophiles are turning to in droves; multiple complete suites of office-targetted applications (KOffice, AbiWord, OpenOffice.org, and others); and many, many other programs that most users will always find that meet their immediate needs. And that's just in the stable repositories.
My question for you is this: What do you think is missing? We'll get somebody on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another software troll (Score:2)
"whaa whaaa whaa.!!!! Software broke! Erased stuff! Fix it!!! Fix it or I switch!"
Good luck with the switch. Be this commercial or free software, you are likely to get the same type of support if you are unwilling to help with the debugging of your problem.
Re:Massive speed of kernel evolution (Score:5, Interesting)
Proprietary operating systems can't compete because they're closed. The best an innovative user/developer can do is fire off feedback asking for a feature, and it'll be implemented wrong anyway, and then released 3 years later in the next major version.
Even more impressive is that this is the *stable* kernel branch that's growing so fast. The -mm experimental branch has gone right off the hook, to the point Andrew is complaining the development doesn't scale any more with only him at the helm.
For those who want a more conservative choice for servers, there's always something like FreeBSD. It's nice to have choice and interoperability. FreeBSD is more compatible with Linux than Windows XP is compatible with Windows Vista. If you don't believe me, consider that at least FreeBSD and Linux have a lot of standards (APIs, file formats, layouts, etc) in common.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think they write out every little thing they did, designed to more impress than really say oh wow, big new features. Microsoft major releases go in circles, but they do some pretty big stuff. Let's see, starting in NT4, they put the graphics drivers into the kernel, then a few releases later
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try that with windows or OSX. It cant be called bloat until they force it on you.
Re:bloat (Score:4, Informative)
You do realize that many of the options in the kernel are mutually exclusive? You use the slab or slub allocator...only one of them gets included when the kernel is built.
The CFS scheduler actually *simplifies* the code as compared to the old one, as does the new readahead code.
Sure, the size of the kernel source code is continually increasing, but most of the increase is for hardware drivers. Also, the running binary doesn't increase in size nearly as fast as the source does...and as others have mentioned, you can always turn off the stuff you're not using to shrink it back down.