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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Linux 2.3.0 205

Posted by CmdrTaco from the its-in-there dept.
Beret was the first to report that the new 2.3 directory that was appearing on the kernel mirrors now contains what looks suspiciously like a 2.3 kernel. Also includes patches from 2.2.8 if you want 'em. No word on what is new.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux 2.3.0 More

Linux 2.3.0

Comments Filter:

  • Hey, what's new? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Aren't 2.x where x is odd experimental kernels?

  • An Alternative Development Model:FreeBSD (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Linux kernels seem to be appearing a little too quickly. Honestly, these overly-frequent kernel releases (followed by patches nearly the next day) create upgrade mayhem for sysadmins who want ot cover their asses by staying up to date.

    I see the haphazard release schedule as a growing weakness for linux.

    As an alternative - I suggest FreeBSD. New releases are made quarterly (at most), and the CVSup tool provides an intelligent way to upgrade from sources.

    Most sysadmins I know who have used both swear that FreeBSD is far easier to upgrade, and is far more sane in its release schedule.
  • For crying out loud! It's only a freaking Kernel update! Surely there's more and better news for nerds. How 'bout something nerdy related to the war, or the space program, or radical new supercomputer developments, or quantum computing, or artificial intelligence, or fly-by-wire systems in jet aircraft, or the newest advance in FPGAs, or... or... what about the latest in schemes for disposing nuclear waste, or stuff on chip fab theft, or proposals for disease outbreak control, or electronic retinal/cochlear implants, or the newest artificial limb design. You see, there's a huge void here at slashdot.org. Where's all the articles on cool geek stuff? I'd like to see more links to neat tech docs than the latest Linux version increment. Linux does not account for 40% of stuff that matters (it's approximate proportion an slashdot). I don't even care if it's new or not. If someone finds a cool link to a geek doc from 1977, then that's fine by my nerdy ass. I want a place to just learn about misc cool stuff. Hey, that's it! I'm gonna start a web site called miscdot.org. No I'm not, but I'd read it if it existed. Anyone want to create one? Then all the true geeks can read that, while the latest free-love Linux hippie can read linuxdot... err I mean slashdot. So people... if you come across an interesting tech doc, post it to slashdot! It don't matter if it's new or not. There is still hope for this place. Or how about even tech docs on how Linux *works*? I'd love to read that instead of a post about how the version number in ftp directories has changed.

    Regards,
    --

    PS> I hope I don't get down-moderated for my slightly negative post. I think what I've said has some merits. Comments, anyone?

  • Re:Warning! Rocky shores ahead! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Novice Foo downloads and compiles an experimental
    kernel. It thrashes his filesystem. Which of the
    following two responses do you think will be
    the most common.

    1. Boy, that really learnt me a lesson. Now lets
    hack the kernel and fix the problem that caused
    the crash.

    2. What kind of overhyped and crappy operating
    system is this?

    --
    Fredrik Henbjork
    http://o112.ryd.student.liu.se

  • Re:Damnit this isn't fair (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's not "slashdot" that is downgrading your posts... it is the readership (moderators) who evidently don't agree with your perspective. I agree that it's too bad that moderation sometimes has this effect, but it's more a result of the linux hippies than of slashdot itself. I think there are going to be a lot more people who don't filter out -1 postings before too long!

  • 2.2.8 -> 2.3.0 (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    2.2.x is the current stable tree. (all 2.n.x kernels are stable (where n is an odd integer)) with the advent of the 2.3.x tree, expect to see NEW unstable (beta) releases of the kernel.

  • Re:Warning! Rocky shores ahead! (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Actually ive seen newbies confused about the kernel version differances and think they HAVE to upgrade. Just like all the people who think they HAVE to upgrade each time a new stable release comes out, just because it came out. Another thing,... I dont think the original poster of this thread put things right.. (or rather,... politely). A little bit reworded and a small explenation of WHY these development kernels are called development kernels and WHY some times there unstable helps a lot, otherwise you get a good deal of press from either ignorant or just anti linux writers claiming how linux changes so much and how there are allways these broken releases and etc etc... Well given the fact it was a few years from 2.0 to 2.2 I would have to say linux is one of the more stable platforms out there. (and I dont mean this considering its ability NOT to crash... but rather,.. the feature set does not radically change that often,... and when it does change the changes will stay around for a good time before moving else where.. most people (in the press...) cant grasp that)

    On one of my (VERY NON PRODUCTION!!! Its just a home/test server that I dont update much anymore...) is still running one of the more stable 2.1 devel kernels... and it has not been down a single time after I upgraded,.. mind you this was also when I moved the server from 2.0... I was propairing for the changes that would need to take place when I would need to I migrate my other stuff (more production stuff) to the actuall 2.2 release..

    still kickin :)

    BTW, on THIS machine I allways have the lastest devel kernel (and lack of devel kernel I have the latest stable).. But I guess its my nature,.. I love bleading edge over leading edge.. because bleading edge you tend to lose a little blood now and then and things get a little exciting :) (THAT and I like working on code so.... :)


    Anyhow Im tired, Ive gone WAY beond the point of this email into rambles,.. I hope the point was understood hahaha :)

  • Re:For those that need to keep up... (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @05:13PM (#1896829)
    Reading the patch, it looks like 2.3.1-pre1 does the following:
    • wait_queue changes: affect mutexes,semaphores,locks, etc.
    • also a reworking of spinlock architecture.
    • Netwinder support (and misc ARM updates)
    • Framebuffer updates (ARM, VGA)
    • an ADFS filesystem bugfix?
    • ext2fs updates for better NFS support? (seems to involve mostly field renaming at this point)
    • a one-line fix for quake protocol masquerading.
    That's it, folks. Nothing earth-shaking yet, although the wait_queue reworking touches quite a lot of code.
  • might be running ruptimed
  • What's to say that 2.3.0 isnt just 2.2.8 but set aside to play with new things in the kernel?

    anyone know how close 2.2.8 and 2.3.0 are?

    -xyster
  • How do you get uptimes of other linux boxes?
  • Seriously. I haven't met a single person that uses OS/2. I've met more Amiga users.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

  • Why not have a little slashbox that shows the latest stable and devel kernel numbers? This would avoid having to make a big announcement every time a minor update is made to the devel kernels, but people who wanted to know what the latest version of the kernel is would still be able to find out, at a glance, without having to log in to some FTP server somewhere. People that don't care could just not select the slashbox in their preferences.

    Perhaps major, _important_ kernel updates could (should?) still be announced, though.

    - A.P.
    --


    "One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad

  • Warning! Rocky shores ahead! (Score:5)

    by mjwise ( 476 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @02:24PM (#1896835)
    I really am posting this to deter people (especially "newbies") from following the 2.3.x series. MOST of us will not find following the devel series to be of any use. The devel series can be very unstable and chaotic. For example, with 2.1.44, file system corruption was possible. The only people I see with a need to follow this are kernel developers, those people whose only hope for hardware support in the new kernel, and, of course, the thrillseekers and bleeding-edgers.

    But, to reiterate, MOST of us do not want to following the devel kernel.

  • Re:Warning! Rocky shores ahead! (Score:4)

    by mce ( 509 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @05:03PM (#1896836) Homepage Journal
    Indeed. I know I don't stand much of a chance with this (and will probably be accused of promoting sensorship by some), but I would plead for not announcing kernels in the development series here on /. Those who know what these kernels are for, will know how to be informed about them via other means.

    A year ago, I still though different, but let's face the facts: the more Linux reaches the masses, the more this will become an issue. The 2.1.44 kernel stands out as a "shining" example of what can happen if things go real bad, but there have been others that were not quite as bad, but still unfinished and/or shaky enough to undermine Linux' reputation if too many newbies would have gotten hold of them.

    --

  • That's the point of pre-patches for stable kernels. The point of pre-patches for dev kernels seems to be slightly different. They're more to get the code out to the people who might be interested so they can smack it around and get it mostly working so that the release development kernels stand a good chance of at least compiling and probably even running. Dev kernels are basically pre-patches for the next stable kernel series, anyway, so their pre-patches are really pre-patches for pre-patches, with a corresponding decrease in expected reliability...
  • What, you mean like the little slashbox that shows the latest stable and devel kernel numbers? (It's called "Linux HQ Kernel Versions" or something like that.)

    You can also finger @linux.kernel.org, and get the same information with less propagation delay.

    I like having the posts on Slashdot, though, because, although I usually finger kernel.org at least once a day, especially when I get the feeling that a new kernel release is imminent, there's only been about three times where I found out about it before it was posted on Slashdot. And, given that I do all my kernel testing on a 386-40, I need all the lead time I can get... :) People who don't want to read the articles can just skip over 'em. It's not hard; I do it all the time with articles I'm not interested in.

    And, regardless, I think the opening of the 2.3 development series qualifies as a major, important kernel update. The patch itself may not consist of more than a version number change, but it's the equivalent of Linus firing the starting gun for the race to get all those cool new features implemented. It's also a signal that the developers think that 2.2 is really solid and stable now, and the main development effort can be concentrated on adding new features for the next stable release.

    This post was intended to be a mildly sarcastic one-liner, and it seems to have gotten a little out of hand, so I'll shut up now...
  • I've got one machine running 2.3.0 now, and two more that I'm planning on having on 2.2.8 before the day is up. The difference between them is that the 2.3.0 machine is my guinea pig box, and it's going to be upgraded to 2.3.1 when it comes out and follow the dev tree. The 2.2.8 machines will be upgraded to 2.2.9 and stay on the stable tree until 2.4/3.0, whichever comes first. Yeah, the only difference is the version number, but having the wrong version number will make a difference when it comes to getting the next patch applied cleanly.

    And the guy who started this has done the rest of us a favor by installing 2.3.0. He found a bug (or maybe it's just a misfeature) where the version number change causes certain modules not to work. Would you rather he'd stuck with 2.2.8 and the bug had gone undiscovered until he installed 2.4.0 a year down the road, expecting something with all the bugs worked out, and discovered that his sound didn't work?

    Yeah, I know, I'm sure someone else would have discovered something that blatant long before 2.4 made it out the door, but the point remains... people using dev kernels is what makes the bazaar model of development work. "Release early, release often," doesn't do much if only a select few are actually _using_ those releases.

    If you want cathedral-development free-source Unix, you know where to find *BSD...
  • Posted by Nericus:

    Yes, perhaps there are better things to report on, but that also means there are better things to comment on ya putz. :) Just like I've no doubt if MacOS released a new version it'd be up here, and when/if MS releases a new version, it'll be posted....Linux just releases a shitload of new versions. :)
  • well, look at the 2.1 series -- it got to 2.1.132 before 2.2 came out.. because there were typically about 3 pre-patches for each release, we would've had to deal with kernel versions up around 2.1.400 or so. :^)

    that leads to another reason: each final (non-pre-patch) version that is released has a massive archive, and a patch for it. could you imagine if there were 400 10+ MB tarballs, as well as all of the patches? that would be insane..

  • A Historic Moment (Score:5)

    by Equuleus42 ( 723 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @02:35PM (#1896842) Homepage
    Witness (most likely) the only time in Linux's history when the kernel patch is smaller than the PGP signature made for it!

    patch-2.2.8-to-2.3.0.gz = 268 bytes
    patch-2.2.8-to-2.3.0.gz.sign = 344 bytes

    I know, the patch is compressed -- but who cares, right? :^)
  • Seriously, live with it.

    There are an immense number of sites dealing with such boring trivia as a new ethernet card and web
    software from the NT perspective. There is simply no value in slashdot repeating these stories.

    They are neither news, nor interesting to any but a small section of the current readership. In fact
    the idea of an NT only ethernet adapter makes me ill just with a mention.

    Slashdot, of the readers, for the readers. You feel like a minority here? good, that's the feeling
    I get whenever I walk into a newsagent.

  • The only difference between 2.2.8 and 2.3.0 is what will happen to the 2 trees in the future.

    2.2.x is a stable series - Only bug fixes wil happen.

    2.3.x is experimental - new features will start to appear.

    This is how it's always been...
  • Surprise, OSS sucks.

    Alsa rocks, I was afraid of it for a long time, but it's a lot easier than OSS.

  • This is just a basis to start 2.3 releases (Score:4)

    by seth ( 984 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @02:14PM (#1896846)
    The only difference is the version number :

    -PATCHLEVEL = 2
    -SUBLEVEL = 8
    +PATCHLEVEL = 3
    +SUBLEVEL = 0

    Hopefully lots of interesting new stuff will come out in 2.3.1.
  • Threads aren't the only way of getting better SMP performance; full-fledged processes work just as well in most cases (except where latency really is the overriding issue), and it's an easier programming model.

    For that matter, a machine running multiple jobs simultaneously will take advantage of multiple CPU's. Unfortunately, all the benchmarks (even server benchmarks) seem oriented toward single-tasking desktop platforms.

    The job mix is the key!
  • My 2.2.8 kernel crashes after less than 5 minutes up. Looks like when Alan hacked the Cyrix code he broke 5 other subsystems.
  • Freshmeat is full of insignificant updates to insignificant packages I don't care about. I want news about advances in the most significant free software projects, like Linux, gcc, apache and KDE. Stuff that matters.

    Freshmeat is nice, I use it as a database when searching for something specific, but not as a general source of news for nerds.

    I don't see how a new topic (which you could unselect) could fail to solve your problem, which appear to be that you get the news twice, once from slashdot and once from freshmeat.
  • To not be moderated down, you just need to have *something* to say. I.e. anything that's not nothing :)

    And, don't mention moderators in a topic which doesn't involve them, you know, it's offtopic. So, the "fuck moderators" are not being moderated out of existence because it offends moderators, but because it's totally off-topic, and adds nothing to the discussion (i.e. everyone knows there are people who hate being moderated at all, repeating it five times in each topic is something noone cares about.)

    OTOH, I don't know who and why moderated down the 'fun begins' post, it's perfectly describing how a kernel addict feels about opening the 2.3 tree...

  • Linus forked 2.0 at a VERY odd point. 2.0.28 was stable, but almost nothing later was until you reach 2.0.36. That's a rough island.
  • You do know that a warning like that makes it almsot impossible to resist the 2.3.x series? :)
  • It's called "DIFFS". Most of the diffs that are likely to come out for the 2.3.x series will be relative to 2.3.0 and later, NOT 2.2.8 or later.

    So, unless you REALLY enjoy 20 megabyte downlaods and the screams of other slashdotters, who you've robbed all that bandwidth from, it makes a LOT of sense to go to 2.3.0 if you want to play with the technology under development.

  • Not all compression algorithms compress all strings equally. (If they could, then all strings would be compressed to one bit, which would be off.) In fact, a compression algorithm can make a string longer, for that reason.

    Hsve you tried compressing the PGP signature with gzip, zip, compress, lzw, or some of these other systems? I'm sure you can find one where you can have both the patch & the signature compressed and still have the signature longer.

  • Absolutely correct! Upgraderitis is a serious, and little-studdied disease, quite possibly a virus of some kind, judging from the rapidity with which it spreads.

    Myself, I'm waiting until at least 2.3.8, or until my hands start shaking uncontrollably from the lack of fresh kernel.

  • Hmm. I don't recall NT Service packs being announced here...
  • Right now we have one other option -- all graphical applications are run as superuser. To me, chmod +s XF86_* == bad, chmod +s random_svgalib_program == bad. If you think putting graphics drivers into the kernel is unstable, you have obviously never used SVGAlib. And besides, with all this FBcon hooplah going into the kernel, it would make sense to just use KGI, which accomplishes the same thing (repeating work == bad).

    Hey if putting graphics in the kernel is bad, why stop there? Maybe we should take sound support out of the kernel, and text-mode support, network device support, and mouse and keyboard support. Having these drivers in the kernel should reduce stability, right?

  • Re:Todo list? (Score:3)

    by mikpos ( 2397 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @05:18PM (#1896859) Homepage
    Check out the Linux wishlist [uml.edu]. AFAIK, this is kind of a compilation of stuff taken from various Linux newsgroups and mailing lists about features people would like. Note that some of the things listed have already been implemented, and most things listed won't be implemented in the near future (i.e. 2.3) if at all.
  • Then we'd end up filtering out about %10 of the posts to slashdot. I agree with the original poster, of the ~10 articles a day posted, I don't want one, no less two, to be wasted by new kernel releases. That's what we have Freshmeat for.

    I'd consider using the Slash code to set up a competing site, but I'm not very good at running a project. But if anyone else would bother to pick up the ball, I'd help you run with it by submitting stories and such.

    If only Rob would get around to releasing Slash 0.3... Maybe this very thing is the reason he hasn't?
  • Alan is up to something like 2.0.38pre17 now... 2.0.38 will probably be close to the end for the 2.0 series after this, as things seem to go. Let's hope this one turns out to be as stable as I hear 1.2.13 is (I jumped into Linux at 2.0.30 myself...)
  • Technically. However, seeing as this is the first one, I wouldn't be surprised if it were identical to 2.2.8, just re-numbered to be used as a reference point from which the development kernels start.

    So, what's on the horizon for the 2.3 tree, anyway?

  • Erm... you meant "finger @linux.kernel.org".

    ( Sorry to nit-pick... )

  • Its good that you're asking, but you're asking the wrong question.

    The question should've been "Where can I find what?" not "What is what" In this case, try here [linuxhq.com]. That overwrought saying "give a man a fish and he eats vs. teach a man how to fish and he eats for a lifetime" applies here in spades.

    Read docs and man-pages, do a "grep -i snmp /usr/doc/HOWTO/*", FAQ's are your friends.

    On another note, the RedHat-2.2.5 kernel is not a vanilla linux-2.2.5 in the first place. Raid and a few other patches have been applied. To get the complete list of changes, run, mount the source-cd, and run something like this:
    "rpm -qpl /mnt/cdrom/SRPMS/kernel-2.2.5-16.src.rpm"

  • Re:Warning! Rocky shores ahead! (Score:3)

    by tgd ( 2822 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @04:06PM (#1896865)
    Spend the $100 and buy VMWare...

    Being able to boot development Linux kernels in it, and have it read the drives from a virtual file means you can easily back up things, and its no big deal if it corrupts stuff. :)

    Certainly quite a good idea for people actually doing kernel development.
  • ...it provides this information in a small package. I'm still glad that the 2.3 announcement made slashdot, though.

    --Lenny

    //"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN.
    It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."

  • *I* think that this is newsworthy... (Score:4)

    by slothbait ( 2922 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @09:58PM (#1896867)
    Some people have mentioned that Dev kernels should not be announced here because we shouldn't be encouraging newbies to download/use them. It's true: the people who would really care about the Dev kernels will find that information elsewhere. So I don't think that 2.3.1 or higher should be announced here on Slashdot.

    However, I find it very newsworthy that the 2.3 series was *started*. This is something that I have been awaiting eagerly. I wish that a list of proposed features had been posted as well, but I'm not even sure if such a document exists.

    Perhaps NFS is a priority? Maybe some more SMP work? I can't wait to see...
    --Lenny

    //"You can't prove anything about a program written in C or FORTRAN.
    It's really just Peek and Poke with some syntactic sugar."

  • The diff from 2.2.8->2.3.0 (Score:4)

    by sparky ( 3778 ) <slashdot@sparky.net> on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @02:10PM (#1896868) Homepage
    From my mirror ( ftp://ftp1.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/ [kernel.org]:
    v2.3$ zcat patch-2.2.8-to-2.3.0.gz
    diff -u --recursive --new-file v2.2.8/linux/Makefile linux/Makefile
    --- v2.2.8/linux/Makefile Tue May 11 13:10:27 1999
    +++ linux/Makefile Tue May 11 13:03:06 1999
    @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
    VERSION = 2
    -PATCHLEVEL = 2
    -SUBLEVEL = 8
    +PATCHLEVEL = 3
    +SUBLEVEL = 0
    EXTRAVERSION =
    ARCH := $(shell uname -m | sed -e s/i.86/i386/ -e s/sun4u/sparc64/ -e s/arm.*/arm/ -e s/sa110/arm/)
    --
  • Welcome to the differences between the Cathedral and the Bazaar.

    Gordon
  • Well, it was my impression that the kernel itself was going to incorporate ALSA. Generally individual projects which have been included in the kernel don't make much mention of it if any (see the joystick driver homepage, the bttv (one of the Video for Linux drivers) homepage, etc. for good examples of this. That is, I'd be more inclined to use "what I've heard from people who read linux-kernel" as an indication that it is than to use the fact it's not mentioned on one particular page that it isn't.
    ---
    "'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.

  • Re:Hey, what's new? (Score:4)

    by Pascal Q. Porcupine ( 4467 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @04:10PM (#1896871) Homepage
    Well, the first and most important one I can think of is ALSA [alsa-project.org] replacing OSS as the soundsystem. FINALLY some decent, modular multimedia and MIDI functionality in Linux! :)
    ---
    "'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
  • Its tough to define the actual moment that Linux "arrived". We could easily name a date well into the past like the first time it was used to compile it's own kernel. We could pin down when XFree86 first came up and running on it, providing a GUI for the unwashed masses (including me). But the last year or so has seen huge progress, where Linux gets named in all the trade mags as a contener, where it gets benchmarked directly against NT, BSDs, Solaris, Netware, etc.

    Starting development on the 2.3.x kernel marks a new era. Linux is here, now people want to see where it will go. Will SMP get major attention as some have already suggested? Will distributions like Red Hat make major money off OSS or will they destroy it? Will games make inroads into Linux as it matures?

    We'll see.

    In fact, we'll make it happen.

  • so would 2.3.0 be as stable as that tree's gonna get for a while? i remember a while back someone saying that 2.1.0 was very unstable (in comparison to what, i dunno).
  • As some people have already noticed, I yesterday released 2.2.8, and in
    the same breath made a 2.3.x release tree (where 2.3.0 is exactly the same
    as 2.2.8 except the numbers have changed - making it easier to synchronize
    the two in the beginning).

    Most of 2.2.8 by far is just architecture updates: arm, ppc and m68k stand
    out as having been pretty much synchronized to their respective devel
    trees, but there are some fixes to alpha and x86 too.

    The one major fix in 2.2.8 is the SMP fix for disable_irq(), courtesy of
    Andrea Arcangeli (I disagreed in details and did it differently in the
    end, but all the heavy lifting was done by Andrea). This is the thing that
    caused silenth deaths for some people with certain network adapters (3c509
    and 8390-based cards in particular: the latter covers ne2000 clones which
    are fairly common).

    There are lots of smaller things (driver updates, filesystem cleanups and
    some networking fixes), but the SMP irq thing is the one to kill for if
    you happened to have any of the affected cards.

    As to 2.3.x, we're beginning with a long overdue waitqueue cleanup, which
    means that a lot of small details need to get fixed in a variety of files.
    A working pre-patch of this is to be found as pre-patch-2.3.1-3, but not
    all drivers have been fixed - and help is appreciated (even drivers that
    _have_ been fixed have not necessarily actually been tested due to lack of
    hardware).

    Linus
  • you were probably looking at cachedot.slashdot.org.

    date: 12:42am
    uptime: 2:04, 2 users, load average: 1.87, 1.56, 1.38
    processes: 112
     I remember the uptimes this morning being at five days. I was having trouble getting on this evening too, so I checked. Was he upgrading kernels maybe?

  • I use FreeBSD and Linux at work, Linux at home. For a server OS where upgrades can break existing code, then FreeBSD makes sense. Linux as a workstation OS is nirvana - utter perfection for the technically competent. However, the upgrade path for FreeBSD is *far* rockier than Linux. With Linux, I only ever had problems going from libc5 to libc6 (aka glibc2). I was lucky enough to miss out on the a.out to ELF fun. But going from FreeBSD 2.1.x to 2.2.x or even worse, 3.x ... no thanks. Most sysadmins who *know* what they're talking about (and aren't just FreeBSD bigots), will agree that FreeBSD has more than its share of upgrade nightmares.
    Chris Wareham
  • the variables probably need to be marked 'volatile' to keep the compiler from optimizing them away.
  • The excellence of a kernel's use of multiple processors is measured by a lot more than simply the number of processors that can be utilized.

  • For those that need to keep up... (Score:3)

    by nirik ( 5709 ) <kevin@scrye.com> on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @02:50PM (#1896879)
    Well, according to 'finger @ftp.kernel.org' there is already a 2.3.1-pre1 patch... Perhaps it has more dangerous changes than the 2.3.0 one. ;)
  • If for no other reason, I hope that posts like this continue than to spawn discussions like this one has. The relative merits of the Linux kernel process, for example, are hashed and rehashed, and only in an open, ongoing forum like this (rather than a bland "new kernel" read-only message) can possible improvements to the procedure be offered.
  • "more sane in its release schedule" assumes some universal definition of sanity. If I am running a Linux box on which my company's life depends (which I frequently have been and will be again soon), I don't want a quarterly update to fix the DoS that was announced two hours ago. I want it now. If someone has just finished a driver for a new device I've been needing access to, and it gets rolled into the kernel, I want that now. I don't want to sit on my ass for June to roll around (or whatever).

    The "release early, release often" philosophy has served Linux well -- I hardly see it as a "weakness" when people are presented with the earliest possible opportunity to hammer out bugs, make their own improvements, and contribute to general stability. I don't know the FreeBSD team's particular beliefs on this matter but I hardly imagine that they're possessed of enough hubris to believe that they can spot bugs in their own kernel releases better than anybody else for a whole three months.

    Sysadmins know, and have known for years, what the "stable checkpoints" in the kernel are -- 1.2.13 was the number everyone knew back when I first set up a Linux-based ISP, and it's become 2.0.3x since then.

    As far as "easy to upgrade", I have yet to see an easier upgrade mechanism than autorpm and apt. If you choose to include kernel updates in either of these systems, it's a no-brainer to get the latest "pronounced stable" kernel from your particular Linux distributor without the need to compile everything for each box you run.

    While I hope this thread will not degenerate into "Linux sucks, BSD rules" (or vice versa), I would like to point out that despite your personal opposition to the Linux kernel release philosophy, it has garnered support across the world and across the years. It works very well for a lot of people, and I hope it doesn't change any time soon.
  • ...or you could ignore the discussion.

    I use a few different operating systems throughout the day, and I'm sure I'm not alone. I appreciate the fact that quite a bit of what I am interested in in the computing world is consolidated here. Stop being so grumpy.
  • They're refering to kernels 2.2.8 vs 2.3.0
    2.2.x are stable kernels while 2.3.y are experimental (where new untested features are added).
    Development of the 2.3.y series will go in in parallell with bugfixes in the 2.2.x series.
  • Bring it on. I know that you don't need the kernal patched anymore to use it. But from what I understand, KGIcon works better when it is. I hope that future distos will include it.

    WAKE UP RedHat...
  • Some of this tuning is due to the Mindcraft stuff.

    The wait_queue and spinlock changes will help multithreaded servers.

    I presume the ex2fs stuff is also targeted at fixing some of the slower operations.

    Some of the linux software packagers need to put some cash into testing/benchmarking so kernel and application deficiencies can be detected and fixed before 'competitors' advertise their existence.

    Linux seems to exist in a 'make it work' world where the many eyes can report obvious problems. There does not seem to be a 'deep analysis' environment that can provide the feedback required to do major tuning. The Mindcraft tests pointed out problems. The fixes, like the wake-one, were fairly obvious. How long would it have been before this would have been implemented if Mindcraft had
    not reported its results? The Linux community should thank Mindcraft (and Microsoft) for publishing the results.

    Almost nobody bothers to setup and monitor situations like those in the test. If a slow down does occur in a commercial deployment the usual solution is to throw more hardware at the problem. What is needed is for some of the bigger companies moving behind Linux to put some $$$$ into testing so other problem areas in the kernel and applications can be found and solved.

  • heh, there was a Cray Port listed on the To Do list. Tell you what, if you give me a Cray, I'll port Linux to it.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • I had to rush to install the new kernel. It
    works great but ...

    OSS Sound flatly refuses to install because
    it only supports up to version 2.2.99

    What the hell for?

    I had to downgrade to the old kernel to get
    my sound back, kernel 2.2.8 that is.
  • The funny thing is that most of us who suggest
    that most of us will not find following the
    devel series to be of any use will as in the
    past be among the first ones to upgrade to
    the lastest and greatest unstable kernel.

    It's kind of like the fundy who preaches against
    girly books and has a large collection of
    playboys and penthouses hidden under his bed
    or spend his time in the brothels.

    They all think : "You guys are all morons, those
    rules don't apply to me ..."

    Enjoy folks, and of course we'll be the first
    ones to bitch when the system crashes, but
    we'll have the fun and excitement of the moment ...


  • One for stable kernel releases and one for unstable releases. Any maybe the unstable release announcements could be filtered out by default?

  • ... unless you're doing device driver development :)


  • Use the LinuxHQ slashbox. It's exactly what you're talking about.

  • Makes sense, right? Right? Okay, maybe not.
  • It is certainly simple when explained, but I think the typical consumer is too impatient to listen. I mea, the first thing I thought when I heard "2.3 out" was that it would be a new release version with fabulous features because of the bump in the second number. I had momentarily forgotten that it was an odd numbered, and therefore development, kernel. And I read Slashdot every day, so I'm probably better informed than the average Linux user.

    I think it would be a good idea to put "stable" or "development" in the kernel file name so that its status would be obvious by just looking at the directory listing. That might prevent a bunch of "accidents".

    D

    ----
  • I'm sure that patches for 2.2 will continue to get released as development on 2.3 moves forward - this is the way it has worked in the past.

    I'm running 2.2.5 and I have no problems (then again, I'm not using Cyrix). My guess would be that something didn't build correctly, you have a hardware problem, or you are using hardware/drivers that are still experimentally supported in Linux (ie alpha or beta code).

    The following seems to work best for me: make mrproper; make config; make dep; make clean; make zImage; make modules; make modules_install

  • So what if said actions lead to the demise of the individuals system. Its survival of the fittest. I wholeheartedly agree. An individuals rights to mess up and ruin any aspect of their life is unalienable. We should neither encourage nor discourage as maybe the next uber-hacker is just one confidence boost away.

  • And if BSD has kernel upgrades..they're posted here. If MacOS has kernel upgrades..they're posted here. If, don't hold your breath, Windows ever release 2000, it *will* be posted here.

    Stop getting your panties in a bunch.


  • If you don't know what to fix until your competition tells you, you've got more problems than you know about. Ditto if you think SMP is the only thing that needs work.

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • Hel-lo (Score:1)

    by Zico ( 14255 )

    I've no doubt if MacOS released a new version it'd be up here [...]

    Ummm, you mean like Mac OS 8.6 that Apple released yesterday?? I must've missed that particular Slashdot thread...

    Cheers,
    ZicoKnows@hotmail.com

  • does not lie within the kernel so much as withing the apps. Look at the ZD tests... they consistently complain that there are very few apps that use threading, so the multiple cpus are actually getting used. The kernel handles threads fairly well, but until apps start handing the kernel threads to be spread among the processors, it doesn't matter how efficient the kernel is.
  • The release of 2.3.0 is news. There are a ton of new features that have been on hold while 2.2 was being prepared.

    The release of kernel 2.3.x for arbitrary values of x are not news.
  • I thought the whole point of pre-patches was to test out patches for the next version to make sure it is stable. With a development kernel, it's not supposed to be stable, so what's the point of a pre-patch? Shouldn't it just be 2.3.1? So what if there's a new version every other day? That worked just fine for 1.3.x.

  • Re:Warning! Rocky shores ahead! (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Shepherd ( 17338 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @08:46PM (#1896906) Homepage
    What are you talking about?
    No one is mentioning a lowering of standards; he just mentions and warns the unprepared that playing with devel patches and such is like tinkering with a very unstable bomb, to be handled with care.

    Usability has nothing to do with catering to the clueless masses, if that is what you are hinting at, and while it is attractive to the clueless, it is just as important for the newbies; larger installed base is a strength of Linux, and not a detriment.


    -AS
  • It's not how its always been. The patch from
    2.0.21 to 2.1.0 was 37843 lines.
  • So, unless you REALLY enjoy 20 megabyte downlaods and the screams of other slashdotters, who you've robbed all that bandwidth from, it makes a LOT of sense to go to 2.3.0 if you want to play with the technology under development.

    If you don't even know how to deal with such a simple conflict in a patch... The only reason to change to 2.3.0 is the kewl feeling that a version number of 2.3.* gives. But I think I'll wait for 2.3.1.

  • Nothing's new (Score:3)

    by Arvind ( 17594 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @02:01PM (#1896910) Homepage
    Only the version number has changed from 2.2.8 to 2.3.0.
  • I would reccomend that after applying the 2.3.0 patch, you edit /usr/src/linux/Makefile and change the version values to 2.2.8. This should ensure that OSS works correctly while still providing all the great new features of 2.3.0

    This has got to be the funniest thing I've read today. Change the only thing different about 2.3.0 back to what it was in 2.2.8. I'm sure this information will be useful in the very near future, but you have to admit it sounds pretty pointless :)

  • One of the /boxen (appropriately named "Slashdot Stats") displays /.'s uptime among several other stats.

    -----
    kernel: lp0: using parport0 (polling).
    kernel: lp0 off-line
    kernel: lp0 out of paper

  • I get very annoyed when some morons come and tell us that we shouldn't use such and such kernel. If we decide to take risks on our system this is our own darn business.

    Oh, get your undies out of a bind. :P I really don't think the "don't touch new kernel!" warning was targeted at you. I thought what he said was entirely appropriate. With the recent influx of newbies (myself included...wheeee!) into the Linux fold, cluelessness is at an all-time high. I'm sure there are people out there running Linux that don't know that the x.odd.x kernels are dev and the x.even.x ones are production. So they would just upgrade, thinking "higher is better," then their systems would be screwed, they'd blame Linux, and go mewling back to Microsloth.

    Yeah, yeah, bring on the arguments about "then they're stupid, and deserve it, blah blah blah." To those that would argue that, I recommend you get out of your basement and realize that the days of a hacker-only Linux are fading fast. So you can accept it, and get on with life, or shake your tiny fists and rant about how guys with big wieners only use a CLI with no mouse, preferably over a network connection for the added "no directly attached monitor" ego boost.

    Phooey, sez I. Linux is a beautiful bit of software, and to try to deny anyone the right/ability to use it seems tragic to me.

    --

  • Microsoft's clustering software for NT is called W olfpack [microsoft.com], though it can only cluster two servers together.

  • DO NOT stop posting stuff like this.

    If I want to read about stuff I can buy in the Sharper Image I read Wired, or hell, I read the Sharper Image.
  • Fingering ftp.kernel.org also says the current beta is 2.3.0

    QuMa
  • Actually, they both give the same output.

    QuMa
  • Wow one person got it! *claps* I think I should know my kernel version, even thou i'm not be the the linux guru like most people one here, but I do know some!
    "Windows 98 Second Edition works and players better than ever." -Microsoft's Home page on Win98SE.
  • Many times when developers refer to stable/unstable they mean the specification to the interface. So in saying that 2.3.0 is stable because it is based on the stable 2.2.8 is ignorant of the terminology. 2.3.0 is unstable because the interface is scheduled to change.
  • Actually, if my memory serves, a new stable series is chosen not only when the codebase is getting stable(r) but also when certain features make it in. As i recall, the 2.2-pre kernels came out when Linus said 'Ok, that's enough' and put a feature freeze down, working on bugs instead of adding stuff.

    Just food for thought.
  • Multiple processes is the way to go much of the time, but threads have an advantage when it comes to multitasking within a process. Threads make it easy to share data structures, and there is less overhead in creating a thread than in creating a process (a process needs a copy of the environment, a thread just shares an existing one). Of course there are other differences which I won't go into.

    However, it would be quite correct to say that the problem with threading isn't the kernel, its the applications. Most applications just aren't written to use multiple threads *or* multiple processes, but thats not the kernels fault, but the applications. Most developers just don't want to deal with synchronization issues and stick with a sequential design model.

    The real work that needs to be done in the kernel as far as SMP is concerned is scalability. The 2.2.x kernels do well up to four CPU's (judging from what I've heard, I only run two myself), but don't scale well beyond that. Contrast this with Solaris, which scales well to 64 CPU's. And I think Irix does as well or better than Solaris. If Linux wants to compete on high end machines, it will need to scale well with as many CPU's as possible without hurting single-CPU performance.

    The current Linux solution is to use several midsize computers in a cluster instead of one large computer. This model has its merits, but there are problems as well. For example, Beowulf doesn't have fault tolerence. And there are a lot of people who want to use Linux on a single high-end system. (And I would just love to see what Linux could do with a Beowulf cluster of machines with 64 CPU's!)

    Lets not forget that most recent benchmarks comparing Linux to other OS's use high end machines. Many people see that as a bias toward other OS's because it is comparing their strengths with Linux's weakness's, which may be true. But it also points out a valid weakness in Linux. Hopefully the 2.3 kernels will start investigating better use of high-end hardware (not only SMP, but also things like RAID support).
  • What we need is a way to filter out news about kernel upgrades; everybody happy then?

  • Anyone have an idea what is on the todo list for the 2.3.x series and eventually 2.4?

  • In fact, the 2.3.X series is a development series. It is really intended to be used to test new additions to the kernel so that eventually a new 2.4.0 stable kernel can be released, which may be a ways down the road yet (remember the amount of time from 2.0.X to 2.2.X?)

    I would discourage people from upgrading to the 2.3.X series until it has reached a stable point.

    -- UOZaphod

  • See a pattern here? (Score:4)

    by UOZaphod ( 31190 ) on Tuesday May 11, 1999 @07:12PM (#1896945)
    2.0.X - stable series
    2.1.X - development series
    2.2.X - stable series
    2.3.X - development series
    2.4.X (future) - stable series

    It is very simple to understand. 2.3.0 is a snapshot of 2.2.8. The purpose is to provide a starting point for a kernel development series.

    A development series is used to test more drastic changes to the kernel (ones which would never be accepted into a stable series). In fact, the only changes usually accepted into a stable series are bug fixes.

    When a development series reaches a stable condition, a snapshot is taken to begin a new even numbered series (i.e. 2.4.X).

    I hope that clears things up for people.

    -- UOZaphod

  • SMP? (Score:2)

    by thales ( 32660 )
    After the Mindcraft and ZD tests, I have a feeling that SMP is going to get most of the attention for a while. M$ really blew it when they pointed out that Linux needed more work in this area. By the time the W2k bug is released Linux should be close to (If not ahead of) NT in SMP.
  • Why would sysadmins want to install development kernels on production systems? I know that the 2.2.x series has been progressing a bit quickly recently, but it will settle down now a bit.

    What happens in the BSD camp if a major flaw is released? Do people have to wait for the next quarter? Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

    The work on Linux is just a little less opaque. With Linux, sysadmins get to review the changelogs, and upgrade if it would improve performance/reliability/etc. Compare that to FreeBSD, where the choice is made for them. I know which I prefer.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers." -- Chip Salzenberg

Close