Bad Lockup Bug Plagues Linux 257
jones_supa (887896) writes "A hard to track system lockup bug seems to have appeared in the span of couple of most recent Linux kernel releases. Dave Jones of Red Hat was the one to first report his experience of frequent lockups with 3.18. Later he found out that the issue is present in 3.17 too. The problem was first suspected to be related to Xen. A patch dating back to 2005 was pushed for Xen to fix a vmalloc_fault() path that was similar to what was reported by Dave. The patch had a comment that read "the line below does not always work. Needs investigating!" But it looks like this issue was never properly investigated. Due to the nature of the bug and its difficulty in tracking down, testers might be finding multiple but similar bugs within the kernel. Linus even suggested taking a look in the watchdog code. He also concluded the Xen bug to be a different issue. The bug hunt continues in the Linux Kernel Mailing List."
Come on Slashdot, get your news current (Score:5, Informative)
The last mail in the thread, dated the 26th of November, explains that the Xen bug was a Xen bug and that the lockup was something different and traceable once the chap experiencing the bug managed to get a kernel backtrace.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A Microsoft bug, proof of the incompetence of closed source.
A Linux bug. Either point to some closed source factor, or claim its solving a victory in the flexibility of open source.
So much this. I know every time I report a bug to Microsoft, I have a fix from the lead Windows architect in under three weeks. I don't understand what these linux wankers are on about.
Some actual information (Score:5, Informative)
So it may be a "bad" lockup bug in the sense that nobody knows exactly what causes it, but it's not "bad" in the sense that people should worry overly.
Why?
Dave Jones sees it only under insane loads (CPU loads of 150+) running a stress tester that is designed to do crazy things (trinity). And he can reproduce it on only one of his machines, and even there it takes hours. And it happens on a debug kernel that has DEBUG_PAGEALLOC and other explicit (and complex) debug code enabled. And even then the bug is a "Hmm. We made no progress in the last 21 seconds", rather than anything stranger.
In other words, it's "bad" in the sense that any unknown behavior is bad, but it's unknown mainly because it's so hard to trigger. Nobody else than core developers should really care. And those developers do care, so it's not like it's worrisome there either. It just takes longer to figure out because the usual "bisect it" approach isn't very easy when it can take a day to reproduce..
Re: (Score:2)
the answer is simple grandmas cell phone goes dead when she is done talking to all her grandkids. sheesh it reminds me of the 'delete file number 23 if parsed in japanese' bug or the 'we can't do the math on gregorian calender because the line was in pascal and the unix machine doesn't get to it until the end of unix time' time loop bug. and yes i am crazy but i just took my meds an hour ago, and while i may not be 100% sure the related bugs are correctly allocate i can tell you i experienced every single o
Re: (Score:3)
I care.
I updated my kernel to the 3.17 and the machine locks up every few days (no when stress testing, when web surfing). No trace, no panic, nothing (which coincides what was described in the tread.
Bug name (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well played!
This is only (Score:2)
Re: Upgrade to Windows for improved stability! (Score:5, Funny)
It is a Genuine Advantage!
Re: Upgrade to Windows for improved stability! (Score:5, Funny)
So are you saying they failed your genuine advantage check?
Re: (Score:3)
Linux is fucking garbage.
Hey! That's my line!
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
BSOD is an error trap screen. The kernel was going to die, the error was caught, the crees was displayed, and the system then halts.
Saying that the BSOD is not a kernel problem is possibly correct, but not certain.
Re: (Score:2)
Which *could* be a bug in the kernel and that was highly believable a few years ago. More recently, not so much. BSOD are very rare except for hardware errors, driver errors and corrupt system files.
Re: (Score:2)
makes me remember when i had that persistent bsod when using a brand new ms certified nic with ms certified drivers on ms windows. i remember exhausting all options for support, from usenet to manufacturer forums, to no avail. but it worked like a charm on linux. yes, on that outdated, primitive and monolithic kernel.
Re: (Score:3)
As said by several others, BSODs are an error message from the kernel, which has died (detected that something is seriously wrong, and stopped itself before it overwrites the file system or something like that) - just like a "kernel panic" on Linux or OS X. And yes, they usually come from hardware problems (regardless of OS), sometimes from misconfiguration (again regardless of OS), and rarely from programming errors (regardless of OS).
What you're saying is that Microsoft code is trivial, since all non-triv
Re:But guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is, they can and do.
Re:But guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: But guys... (Score:2)
The fact that this is even brought to the spotlight shows the miracle of open source.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hard lockup bugs in every major version of the OS that I have used from Windows 95 to 7,
Well, Windows 95 & 98 sure - everything prior too. But I've not seen a lockup bug in Windows since then, and I use the damn thing every day at work. Hell, OS X locks up more than Windows, and I've only ever had that happen when I was doing bad things to the graphics driver while writing openGL code.
those have never been and will never be fixed.
The implication of this statement is that not only do you know what these bugs are, but you are able to reproduce them and are maybe even willing to share the details on them. I'd like to find out what they a
Re:But guys... (Score:4, Interesting)
I thought open source software was supposed to be better because everyone could see the code and spot problems.
Too often when I find a bug (even investigate the actual reason as well as I can) and talk about it in a mailing list or bug tracker, it's just crickets chirping. No one stands up and properly takes responsibility of the issue. I very well understand that this might be due to lacking developer resources, but it still results in bad software.
I have started wondering if modern software is simply too complex to be developed in high quality with the resources (manpower and funding) that open source gets.
Re:But guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But guys... (Score:4, Interesting)
In my experience, closed source software comes with much less bugs to begin with. With OSS, even some essential features can be glitchy or partially implemented.
While I'd agree that much open source software is just hacked together and shipped when it does everything the developers care about, most of the bugs in our software (not open source per se, but our customers get all our source so they can modify it if they want) are caused by third-party, closed-source libraries that we use because licensing them was much cheaper than writing the same code from scratch. I haven't seen a single crash in a year that wasn't due to third party, closed source code.
And, financially, it still makes sense, because developing workarounds for their bugs is still cheaper than writing the code from scratch.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah.
Re: (Score:2)
Just how much experience do you have? In my experience, expensive "enterprise grade" software such as Oracle, VMWare, WebSphere, Windows Server have a massive amount of bugs that causes crashes, unexpected behaviour, incompatibilities between minor point releases...and many go unacknowleged or unpatched by the vendor.
On the whole, the major open source projects quckly admit to and fix bugs and security holes when found.
OpenSSL a funny case of a corporation controlling and using the project for rubber-stamp
Re: (Score:2)
I have started wondering if modern software is simply too complex to be developed in high quality with the resources (manpower and funding) that open source gets.
Consider how your experience differs from commercial software. Most of the time there is no channel for reporting bugs unless you are a multi-seat corporate customer! And you statistically never get direct access to their bug tracker; yes I'm aware that some corps open those up but they are far and away in the minority.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the time there is no channel for reporting bugs unless you are a multi-seat corporate customer!
Apple has a bug reporting tool, and one that actually gets responses too. If you use OS X Server you even get an email address for problems, and they even reply - it's astonishing. Most of the commercial software that I've actually bought (which is normally pretty cheap software to be honest) also had pretty responsive support. Now if you buy Microsoft software, or Adobe software, or whatever, then sure - they don't listen but they do collect crash reports & so-on (if you let them). I'm not sure that th
Re: (Score:3)
I think the answer to that one is "all over the map". Certain aspects of open source are done with excessive attention to niche functionality because there's either funding or the kind of geeky details that have nerds jumping all over it to implement. Other features, particularly features you'd use if you're a... less than tech-savvy user, tend to be ignored. Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]. On the bright side, it's not like code actually rots so the resource problem can be rephrased as how quickly does the environment cha
Re: (Score:2)
What does the E in RHEL stand for?
Since I've got your attention & while we're at it, how about the second S in OSS?
Re: (Score:2)
Something like Apache?
No and no.
Re:But guys... (Score:4, Informative)
Have you ever compared enterprise class software (I also count Windows 7 Enterprise) with OSS Software? Windows does not even reliably support STR and resume. Using multiple monitors is a PITA.
Suspend and multiple monitors have always worked great in Windows for me. Under Linux, they have also worked fine in some machines, but I have also occasionally experienced serious problems with those areas. During recent times I have found out that even laptop screen brightness adjustment cannot be expected to work reliably out of the box under Linux.
Re: (Score:3)
There's an imbalance in development. Under windows, every hardware manufacturer does all they can to ensure their hardware is good - investing a lot of money in developing and testing the drivers. Under linux, the manufacturers usually don't care - aside from some server hardware, there just aren't enough resources to justify it from a business perspective. So development falls to three-man team on a side project, and sometimes it's down to community volunteers working from reverse-engineered specification
Re: (Score:2)
NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel do care. That's most of the hardware that matters today. Even Samsung uses Linux in their products a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
So your claim is that the bug you are talking about is unknown? That you haven't seen it? My, that's quite a problem in logic, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought open source software was supposed to be better because everyone could see the code and spot problems.
It is the case: the person that merged the patch had access to this comment, and this person should have asked for details and maybe fixes before merging.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Woooosh!!!
Got it?
And the others after you?
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if you think it'd be sensible to keep embedded systems like that on the bleeding edge, then you should definitely consider the nice bridges I'm selling, a real bargain.
Re: (Score:2)
And I've seen steward(esses) use iPads for work. So what?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want to switch to *BSD..... and buy a Mac.
So which is it? I got introduced to Linux because I had a Mac. I first started messing around with Terminal.app and it's gone from there. After a botch attempt at Linux on a generic laptop and hating having to deal with finding GNU Tools for Windows I'm thinking of going back.
It has a UI that "just works" and I don't have to dick around with settings. Even IPv6 is very easy to set up with a lot of brokers straight from the Network settings. But it also has gcc, clang, make, etc that makes life easier for do
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, I'm moving in the opposite direction, but reach the same conclusion. Working with (most) modern IDEs just seem like masochism after you've used VIM.
The learning curve for vim is horrible. I can understand anyone who gives up before reaching reasonable productivity levels. Once you've gone through it, however, the IDEs are just no competition.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
I feel they are really different tools for different things.
I would hate to do much of my Python scripting or fortran-barely-beyond-punchcards wrangling with an IDE, which in the first case would force me to setup hundreds of little "projects", and in the 2nd case would fight me every step of the way because nothing is really standard. Sometimes, all I want is a good editor, and for me, emacs is exactly this (and vim/sublime/ed/notepad.exe/whatever for other people - whatever floats your boat).
On the other
Re: (Score:2)
If you are using an overly verbose language with a lot of code you could automatically generate *cough* Java *cough* it is better to use an IDE. For everything else that is pure text entry Vim is superior.
Re: (Score:2)
code in emacs or vim just seems like an exercise in masochism after you get used to a modern IDE.
i have used probably more that two dozens of ides professionally in my life. there were some very cool tools, but they come and go. eclipse, which just rocked for years, is now a bloated monster. just an example, all of them dissapeared one way or the other.
then i returned to emacs, which i had tinkered with in my early years, and realized: this software was written before i was born, it runs on anything from a computer to a bread toaster, it has a solution for anything i as a developer might need, it is st
Try a stable distro like RH/CentOS. Or Mac (Score:5, Informative)
> First got into it ... because Linux was totally stable
If stable is your top priority, Fedora is approximately the worst possible choice. Fedora is essentially Red Hat Beta. If you want stable, the devel / beta branch is not for you. You'll probably be much happier with Red Hat or its twin, CentOS.
Also, you mentioned that you did an "upgrade" to Debian Unstable. You didn't mention any _reason_ for doing that. If stability is a top priority for you, don't upgrade just because you can, don't fix it if it aint broke.
Mac OSX may indeed be a good choice for you also. It is certified Unix and if you use the commondand line in Linux you'll find that day-to-day tasks are the same on a Mac. System internals are different of course, but bash, sed, awk, grep, and vim work just like they do on Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
misconception. turned down free replac of 2008 Mac (Score:3)
> OS X may be stable but it has a short shelf life. You might find your hardware unsupported in 3 or 4 years
I don't know if that might be true of some iOS mobile devices or where that FUD comes from, but my six year old Mac from 2008 is going strong and I just installed an OS update. My employer wanted to replace it, but it's a quad core with16GB of RAM - more than sufficient for today's software. Bureaucracy said the budget had to be spent on computer equipment, so we upgraded one of the four drives
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if that might be true of some iOS mobile devices or where that FUD comes from, but my six year old Mac from 2008
Well, I guess if Yosemite runs on YOUR six year old Mac you must be right, and anything anyone else says must be FUD.
Then again, OSX March was released in 2013, and dropped support for early-2009 13-inch Mac Book Pros.
So, just to make it perfectly clear to you, they've ALREADY dropped support for a laptop that's a year NEWER than your computer, being dropped by OS that's already a ye
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I guess if Yosemite runs on YOUR six year old Mac you must be right, and anything anyone else says must be FUD.
FUD is when people made false statements to try to prove their point. As an example of FUD, here's your statement:
Then again, OSX March was released in 2013, and dropped support for early-2009 13-inch Mac Book Pros.
I'm assuming you made an error and meant OS X Mavericks, not OS X March? Even if so, you're absolutely wrong. Mavericks and Yosemite can run on any MBP (Macbook Pro) from 2007 on. So, maybe you made a second typo and had really meant 2009 MacBooks (not Pros)? Alas, Mavericks/Yosemite (they have the same system requirements) will run on early-2009 Mac Books, as well. So, you're basically just ent
Re: (Score:2)
I'm assuming you made an error and meant OS X Mavericks, not OS X March?
Yes, Mavericks. Not sure what freudian slip caused that.
Even if so, you're absolutely wrong. Mavericks and Yosemite can run on any MBP (Macbook Pro) from 2007 on.
http://support.apple.com/en-us... [apple.com]
Ok, that's interesting.
Now Check:
http://support.apple.com/en-us... [apple.com]
"
MacBook Pro (13-inch, Mid-2009 or later),
MacBook Pro (15-inch or 17-inch, Mid/Late 2007 or later)
"
They are explicitly excluding the early 09' and earlier MBP 13" with Mavericks,
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.sonnettech.com/prod... [sonnettech.com]
You're mounting that mac wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not so sure - after being extremely sceptical to macs (and using Linux as my primary/only desktop for more than 10 years), a wild iMac suddenly appeared on my desk at work a few days ago. It's an old i3 from 2010 which I reinstalled with 10.9 (10.10 isn't supported by the AFS file system due to some legal issues with code signing, and 10.10 is apparently mostly iOS compat stuff, which I don't use), install iTerm2, emacs, brew, and some other stuff - and its working quite nicely. And unlike when I've use
Re: (Score:2)
OS X may be stable but it has a short shelf life
Macbook Pro 3,1 (2007) running the latest Yosemite right here (with upgraded 6gb ram and SSD). Fully supported.
My work computer is a Mac Pro 1,1 (2006). Doesn't officially support Yosemite (due to a 32-bit EFI and Yosemite being 64-bit only) but was a piece of cake to install with an EFI override.
7-8 years of support doesn't seem too bad to me!
Despite OS X's development lineage, enough things like the windowing system have been swapped out so that you're still installing piles of addons to get interoperability with Linux. Apple's liking for proprietary systems and walled gardens doesn't help either.
BS! OS X comes with bash, tcsh, and just about every commandline tool you can think of. I spend as much time in Terminal.app as I do any other program. The OS X insta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had a G3-era Mac, high spec'd, that was bought in 1999 and obsolete in 2002. They've been at this for a long time. The shiny gloss has its draw, but practicality wins out in the end.
I work at a publishing company that relies on some proprietary software that is rarely updated (and hugely expensive when it is). We had a few terminals running OS9 until around 2009. We still have a G4 1.25ghz powermac running OS X 10.4.11 and that same software today (PowerMac 3,6 circa 2003). We even ran some G3 desktops past 2002, and I kept a G4 PowerBook until well into the Intel era.
I'm really not sure by what standard your 1999 G3 was "obsolete" by 2002! As a company, we didn't even start upgrading
Re: (Score:2)
Check out Mint 17.1 Mate, it's about Ubuntu LTS (where you don't really need to leave to default repos for the most part) and still refining Gnome 2.
Linux is sadly stuck in endless cycles of waiting for better software and better drivers, that will never end even though we might find a (temporary) sweet spot sometimes.
There once was a cycle of well supported, just works, ever improving releases. Ubuntu 8.04, debian lenny, Ubuntu 10.04, debian squeeze (ignoring some debates about the 8.04 launch). I'd say Mi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's the middle man making the theme and wallpaper then.
Well, I'll certainly have to try it but if it's like the old days of totem player as default, "warning : do you want to install the mp3 codecs" and no flash plug-in, it's not my kind of thing anymore. On the other hand Ubuntu is excellent if you "roll your own" (between quotes as every installation of everything is brain-dead easy and automated) : use the pxe or netinstall installer, get the base command line system (that has most everything for such
Re: (Score:2)
And should I add, this is mostly about trivialities. I welcome you pushing Ubuntu LTS Mate. Even Ubuntu Unity has some qualities (seen friends running it on their own, it is made for the 1366 by 768 laptop)
Re: (Score:2)
There seems to be a big chasm opening in the Linux world. Not to worry though, there is stable Linux out there. There are two forks of Gnome and a large variety of alternative desktops to choose from. You can still install Jessie without systemd and Devuan, Slackware, and Gentoo intend to keep that option open.
As for the lockup bug in TFA, in most projects, the kernel versions in question would be internal release only. The outside world would never see them. For example, my debian system is on 3.16 even wh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here [github.com] but there's not much there yet.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't always happen, but for example, MATE is a fork of the GNOME 2 code doing more of less what you request.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say in general, stay away from the 3D accelerated desktops (all of them) if you aren't 100% sure you have the right graphics and driver. Better safe than sorry, then you only have to worry about the other issues.
Re: (Score:3)
I was most recently using Debian, but my computer got messed up after I did an update and that SystemD thing got installed.
Yeah, Debian totally jumped the shark with Jessie. A bunch of stuff broke on my machine - I suspect it was systemd. Couldn't go back to Wheezy though - I bought a new MoBo, and Wheezy didn't even support the *wired* LAN connection out-of-the-box.
I haven't been happy with other developments, either. I used to love GNOME 2, but I tried GNOME 3 and it was like using Windows 8. It's just a bad and dumb experience.
I never even tried G3 - the screen shots and reviews were enough to keep me away. I switched to XFCE at that point, and I've been pretty happy with it. The file manager is only adequate - but then there are no really good graphical file managers in Linux, and I've l
Re: (Score:2)
Well... there's no walled garden on the Mac side. Nevertheless I used to cringe at the thought of leaving Linux. Then I just got sick of dealing with all that crap of stuff breaking all the time, and I had better things to do than spend a whole night till 2am finding out why the latest update broke something. So I learned to stop worrying and love the Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
I went through this around 2007-2008 when after running Debian as a desktop for about five years on two desktops, my wife and I got tired of the breakage with every major update. While I was willing to put up with more, my wife got tired of me spending a few hours trying to sort things out on her desktop with every update -- often basic things like graphics driver stuff in a multi-monitor setup. Power savings never worked (I gave up on it).
What often drove updates was wanting to use the latest version of Ec
Re: (Score:2)
weirdness about having to menu click within the selected text to pull up a copy menu.
Or right click if you use a regular mouse (I never could get the hang of Apple mice), or two-finger click/tap on a trackpad, or just Cmd-C.
Mac's GUI design with a single global menu is just *terrible* on a multi-monitor setup
Yosemite has somewhat solved this, but the menu in most applications is more of a lookup for the keyboard shortcut than something you actually use. In Yoseimite you get a menu and a dock on every monitor, and it's better, but it's not perfect. I do wonder about that top menu bar, but at the same time it's nice being able to glance to the top of the screen to see what app
Re: (Score:2)
Although I cringe at the thought of Apple and its walled gardens, I hear you and I feel your pain. The Linux landscape seems more homogeneous and less 'choiceful' than it did even a few years ago. But at least give Xubuntu a try before you decide to give up on Linux altogether. And FWIW, I haven't experienced any crashes at all, (fingers crossed), and my installation is as up-to-date as automatic updates can make it.
The whole thing has become too complicated and it makes hobbyists cringe. Not just the kerne
Re: What's happening to Linux? (Score:2)
The latter is not unlikely. Corporations seems to love policy management, and shit seems to have hit the fan with the into of policykit. A xml monstrosity delegating limited "root" abilities based on various criteria (like consolekit/logind "seat" status).
Never mind that whole debacle with Puleeaudio, that started with a simple set of usb headphones...
Automagical turtles all the way down.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been a Linux user continuously through out that whole period, and I get what you're saying. For the last couple of years I've found Linux a lot less stable. Sometimes the culprit looks like the graphical environment/drivers, sometimes maybe not. But it's been really frustrating and I've not know where to begin hunting it down. Bug reports sure, but when your bug stays open for 18 months.....
Re: (Score:2)
What's happening is Linux is catching up to where Microsoft was several years ago. Don't let the pretty skin and fast hardware running it fool you. It's still in a primitive state.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux support in a nutshell: blame the user.
Re: (Score:2)
If the user is rolling their own operating system with a linux kernel? Yup.
Re: (Score:2)
Get an operating system whose kernel works. OpenBSD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux is for embedded, and for servers. It excels in both areas, and should rightly be admired for what it has achieved. Linux on the desktop though, is an exercise in futility. The reason is that a desktop user interface is at least an order of magnitude more complex and nuanced that writing a server OS. Not to mention the fact that building a coherent desktop user experience requires pretty solid leadership - something the Open Source community necessarily lacks.
Sorry guys, but that's just how it is. Carr
Re: (Score:3)
i've been using linux on the desktop for decades now. of the zillions of ui's available, i remember doing pretty well with either windowmaker, gome (2), xfce, never liked kde but there were always options. since the gome 3 fiasco i got into tiling window managers and realized i had never actually *needed* anything else.
so ymmv but for me particularly linux has the best desktop uis available today, period. ui is only complex if you want to get dumb peolple to do smart things, and that's just impossible, a ch
Re: (Score:3)
ui is only complex if you want to get dumb peolple to do smart things
And this attitude is part of the whole problem - not that having to use professionally-designed operating system UI's is a problem of course, but it's not free. I do very smart things with my computers thank you very much, but wrestling with their configuration to make them actually work does not number amongst them.
Re: (Score:2)
EVERYTHING you do with your computers boils down to a) run programs, b) manage files, c) manage views. there is nothing more that you, as a user, can do with a computer, and there is nothing you can do with a computer that involves anything else but those things. how hard is it to design an ui for that?
it becomes complex the moment you try to invent ways to fool people into doing those things without knowing. why? the fuck should i know. you want to use a computer you better get familiar with those 3 basic
Re: (Score:3)
EVERYTHING you can do in life boils down to a) taking actions b) saying words c) sleeping. There's nothing more that you, as a human, can do with your life.
Now, I'm not totally sure what point you were trying to make, and I certainly don't intend to discuss it with you any further, but a funny thing happens when you 'boil things down'; You lose what it was you were talking about in the first place. Boiled down to dust like that, nothing has any meaning, and discussion ceases to be possible or profitable for
Re: (Score:2)
well, you seemed to have a problem with my "attitude", and i'm not totally sure you understood my point in the first place. but since you don't intend to discuss any further it's kind of moot now. just fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every commercial software product I've worked on has had at least some level of unit testing, QA and UAT before it's considered ready for prime time. You'd be sacked for using, "Does it compile?" as your metric for it being ready.
Re: (Score:2)
Every commercial software product I've worked on has had at least some level of unit testing, QA and UAT before it's considered ready for prime time
"at least some" just isn't enough, if it were true at all (you can't tell for commercial software because you only have gratuituous statements like yours to back it). and i've seen quite a bunch of commercial projects going through qa and uat while missing severe bugs, even fundamental design flaws going unnoticed.
the antagony open vs commercial is a fallacy. there's only competent vs incompetent teams, and both happen in both scenarios. the only difference is that with commercial closed software you'll nev
Re:Have they checked systemd? (Score:5, Funny)
It's not systemd related, you can check by opening a termin
Re:Have they checked systemd? (Score:5, Funny)
I blame systemd anyhow. The growing use of systemd is also the primary cause of global warming, and the declining honeybee population.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wait, I thought the honeybee problem was already found to be Pulseaudio's fault?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When I saw the article, I'd assumed it was systemd related. Now that I've read it, I know it's not. All of the systemd naysayers lining up to say "I told you so" are now going "DOH!" and dispersing. For now...
Re: (Score:3)
Sir, you are obviously mistaken (Score:2)
This is but the price we pay for not dedicating an entire core to systemd. If systemd did not have to share a core with the other processes, then it would be free to seek out and steril...correct these trifling kernel issues and the ones responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I must just be imagining running VLC on my Android tablet to play files on my NAS server. And Google must be quaking in their boots at the threat from Windows tablets and phones.
As for a few weeks of uptime supposedly being impressive, we reboot our Linux servers once a year, just because (or when we upgrade to a new OS release). I reboot my Linux desktop every few months because, by then, it's got a few kernel releases out of date. Damn it's a crappy OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, a few weeks of uptime! My RHEL workstation - which sees a very varied use and high loads of loooong times, with lots of pheripals - regularly goes for months...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even then, the market will show that it prefers a well advertized heap of shit over a buggy piece of software with more supposed features.
Re: (Score:2)
And hand Intel a monopoly? Careful there.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. Either I didn't have my glasses on or I was drunk. On balance I was probably drunk.
Re: (Score:2)