Linux Kernel 2.6.35 Released 159
eldavojohn writes "Linus has announced the release of 2.6.35 for people to download and test after he found not a lot of changes between this week and last. The big features to look out for include: 'Transparent spreading of incoming network traffic load across CPUs, Btrfs improvements, KDB kernel debugger frontend, Memory compaction and Support for multiple multicast route tables' as well as various performance and graphics improvements. Linus also praised the community saying that 'regression changes only' after rc1 improved this time around and gave numbers to back it up saying 'in the 2.6.34 release, there were 3800 commits after -rc1, but in the current 35 release cycle we had less than 2000.' Good to see the process is becoming more refined and controlled after the first release candidate — hopefully there's no impending burnout."
Re:2.6.35 has not been released (Score:5, Informative)
Linus sez
So 2.6.35 is out, go check
it out.
in the other TFA so I suppose it is out.
Re:2.6.35 has not been released (Score:3, Informative)
Looks released to me.
http://www.linux.org/news/2010/08/01/0001.html [linux.org]
http://www.linux.org/news/2010/08/01/index.html [linux.org]
Re:Still no ZFS. (Score:4, Informative)
The original joke:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and i saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. so I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!" He said, "Like what?" I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?" He said, "Religious." I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" He said, "Christian." I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" He said, "Baptist!" I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" He said, "Baptist Church of god!" I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" I said, "Me too! Are you reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.
Re:3.6.35? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Still no ZFS. (Score:5, Informative)
Courtesy of the inimitable Emo Philips [guardian.co.uk].
Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (Score:3, Informative)
But it's aged fairly well for being at least six years old [cnet.com].
Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (Score:3, Informative)
This sounds like FUD to me. I do not think the intent of your post is clean. Or maybe you have no clue and should consider getting better lawyers next time... then, if GPL still does not work for you, use some BSD flavor as OS for your next proyect.
Re:Still no ZFS. (Score:3, Informative)
It got me to switch. And every single person that I've talked to about it has.
I'm not talking about the companies that just USE Linux internally. I'm talking about the companies that sell something linux.
Tivo for example (The reason for GPLv3) there are companies that may want to pick up and run with something Linux based but are afraid about what might happen if they build a product around it. So they scrap the whole idea.
Vs a BSD license that Apple's created OS X around, companies have built specialty FreeBSD distros for their high end routers, the company that took over FreeNAS uses it as the basis of their OS for the hardware they sell.
Re:GPL Intellectual Theft (Score:3, Informative)
Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.
You should hire a better lawyer, GCC does NOT restrict develop non-free programs. Check the FAQ [gnu.org] for more info.
Re:Still no ZFS. (Score:4, Informative)
Eh. Sun intentionally chose the license to be GPL incompatible.
And it's quite likely that their explicit intention was to be Linux incompatible as well. Should it have been licensed under some other terms, the license for ZFS would likely have been chosen to be incompatible with that. For instance, if Linux was BSD licensed, Sun could have just released ZFS under the GPL. While in theory it's perfectly compatible, in practice a BSD project will refuse GPL patches.
Which really makes sense, as Linux has been replacing Solaris in lots of places, and I imagine Sun didn't want to help them with that.
World of Warcraft 3.3.5 fix made it into 2.6.35 (Score:5, Informative)
The fix for World of Warcraft under WINE made it into 2.6.35, though it is not mentioned in the changelist above. WoW 3.3.5 crashed under recent Linux kernels because it apparently made use of the "icebp" instruction, whatever that is; the kernel stopped sending SIGTRAP for icebp instructions in an earlier 2.6 build for whatever reason.
Diff of fix [kerneltrap.com]
Source code of file [kernel.org], showing the icebp fix merged in (search for "icebp")
WINE compat page [winehq.org]
Re:Still no ZFS. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm increasingly wary of BtrFS, due to claims that there are fundamental design flaws.
The only 'claims of fundamental design flaws' I'm aware of are that it has bad performance in some pathological cases. Which is true of every single filesystem ever produced and likely true of every filesystem you'll ever use in the future.
I'm certainly not aware of it having any flaws that ZFS doesn't; my main concern is that Oracle won't want to fund any more BTRFS development now they also own ZFS.
Re:Welcome... to the REAL world (NEO) (Score:4, Informative)
I am also a professional software engineer/network engineer by trade since 1995
A young whippersnapper, then. When you have a bit more experience of the real world you might start to understand just how many critical systems already run on Linux.
BTW, I can make a safe bet that anyone writing avionics software is not running it on Windows either. Back when I was writing avionics software it all ran on custom hardware with no OS worth speaking of; and having a 'free' OS wasn't much of a benefit when our hardware was selling for the price of an expensive sports car.
Re:Still no ZFS. (Score:4, Informative)
Presumably he meant the issue described here: http://lwn.net/Articles/393144/ [lwn.net]
From reading the mailing list thread, my impression was that it was a storm in a teacup, and the real problem was just a simple bug rather than a fundamental misdesign. Or if you want to be slightly less charitable, a case of "concern trolling".
my wishlist (Score:4, Informative)
Since there seems to be no place on the internet where to post feature-requests for linux, here's four points from my list:
1. User-space scheduling. It would be nice if a process could have better control on the priority of each of its threads. For example, on a web service where multiple users are active, it is often necessary to give each user his/her share of the cpu. Right now this is rather difficult to do in a fair way, since multiple threads may belong to the same user.
2. Recursive strace: Currently it is not possible to run "strace" on a process which is already being straced. So for example: "strace -f strace -f ls" will not work (you'll get an "operation not permitted" inside the first strace. This makes it impossible for programs to use strace (or the related ptrace system call), since other programs which might also use strace, may depend on them.
3. "Nice" for bandwidth. It would be great if there was a command similar to "nice", which acts not on cpu-cycles but instead on bandwidth.
4. "Select" or "poll" with access to inter-thread synchronization structures. Select and poll are system calls which act mainly on file-descriptors. However, sometimes you'd like to wait also on a mutex or semaphore. Some support for this would be great.
This list is just from the top of my head. I could probably come up with a lot more.
Alex
Re:Still no ZFS. (Score:4, Informative)
the lack of adoption of OpenSolaris compared to Linux has to do with real world considerations. The summary of the reasons really is that Sun waited too late to roll it out, should have done it in late 90s. That would have solved the issues: It doesn't support the amount of hardware Linux does, doesn't scale from embedded devices to supercomputers, doesn't have a couple tens of thousands of packages made for it, is much harder to admin (speaking as certified solaris engineer)