Slashdot Log In
Linux 2.5.2 Kernel Released
Posted by
Hemos
on Tue Jan 15, 2002 07:53 AM
from the go-and-compile dept.
from the go-and-compile dept.
valdis writes "Amazing.. it's been out over 3 hours and not discussed to death. Well, maybe there's not as many bleeding-edge crazies out there. But if there are, here's what's new. You can get it at the usual place, but please use the mirrors if you can."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Cool (Score:1)
Re:Cool (Score:5, Informative)
Linux Kernel Mailing List FAQ (a must read before submitting bugs or oopses) [tux.org]
Good site about kernel hacking (not just for newbies either) [kernelnewbies.org]
Bah (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bah (Score:5, Funny)
USB (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds rather interesting. I've had some issues with my Rio 800 MP3 player with many 2.4 kernels, perhaps it's more stable now? Also great that the kernel guys are working on 2.0 support.
Ciryon
So... (Score:4, Funny)
Mirrors (Score:5, Informative)
Why? (Score:1, Interesting)
Or maybe... (Score:5, Interesting)
Or maybe most of us are at work and are working on (relatively) stable workstations that we can't tinker with. I'm not a kernel hacker myself (I wait until a distro comes out with a new stable kernel and all the trimmings) but I can imagine that kernel traffic probably peaks after business hours.
Re:Or maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
New Scheduler (Score:2, Informative)
I believe there was some discussion of integrating Ingo's patch with the preemptive patch, should be good for everyone.
A link to his discussion http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/latest.html#4 [zork.net] on Kernel Traffic.
O(1) Scheduler? (Score:1)
Re:O(1) Scheduler? (Score:5, Informative)
http://people.redhat.com/mingo/O(1)-scheduler/ [redhat.com]
I must say that after using it for a few days, I'm impressed. It totally changes the characteristics of multiprocess servers like Apache and PostgreSQL under high load. For example, I've run ApacheBench against a mod_perl script that queries a pgsql database, in the new scheduler I get a mean response time that is N*1.05*concurrency with a standard deviation of less than 1% of the mean. In the old scheduler I'd get a mean that is N*1.07*concurrency with a sd of up to 75% of the mean. So in other words you get essentially the same throughput with both schedulers (O(1) appears slightly faster in my limited testing). But what's more important is that in the O(1) scheduler everyone is treated equally - they all get served in 1.05*N*concurrency, no more, no less -- while with the old scheduler some requests get a response that's 1*N and others get a response all the way up to 4*N*concurrency.
IMHO, it's better to give everyone an equal level of service than to randomly favor one group of users over another.
With the major restrucuturing finished for now... (Score:2)
Signal problems fixed - changelog (Score:2, Interesting)
Jakub Jelinek: fix Linux/x86 confusion about arg passing of "save_v86_state" and "do_signal"
Seems somehow appropriate. (the confusion, I mean... :) Anyways, what a bunch of prolific hackers. Some of these guys had changes or patches in nearly every pre version.
The changelog could be a bit more verbose, but otoh, perhaps these kind of descriptions are more thought-inspiring.
After UDMA stopped working........ I am waiting. (Score:1)
Updates to OSS drivers (Score:4, Insightful)
quick ... (Score:1)
b.
How to compile a standalone module? (Score:2)
It seemed that whenever I wanted to compile a module for some new driver, I would also have to recompile the entire kernel, otherwise the two wouldn't interract correctly (yes, I'm being vague. I think I would get messages about symbols, but it's been a while).
So, is there a way to compile a single module to run with a kernel that has already been built?
And what exactly does MODVERSIONS do?
2.4.x to 2.5? (Score:1)
Async I/O? (Score:1)
2.5.2 is new, but what is coming? (Score:2)
2.5.x WILL break things (Score:1)
Just be aware that quite a bit is moving around in 2.5.x, so nothing is guaranteed to stay stable at all in it.
Hopefully... (Score:1)
XFS still nowhere in sight (Score:1)
(Getting a kernel via CVS is SOOOO nice)
Why the latest? (Score:1)
Do you really expect many people to run this kernel? It's unstable as ****, mostly due to the block IO changes.. I think most users would rather not have their drive corrupted because they are running the latest and coolest kernel..
Anyway, no 2.5 for me, until ALSA enters this series of kernels..
2.5.....whatever next! (Score:1)
OK, I'll bite.. (Score:2)
ps.) hint to developers: better VIA chipset support!
Re:Development is News? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hardware support (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hardware support (Score:4, Interesting)
There's huge amounts of discussion going on in the lkml (Linux Kernel Mailing List) right now the autoconfiguration tool.
Re:Hardware support (Score:3, Informative)
Instead of bitching around in message forums with your 24.6k modem connection, why don't you spend the time researching what works under linux and what doesn't. Maybe you would have found that there are card readers for every digital film format (compact flash, smartmedia, memorystick, sd etc) that work under linux.
Or maybe, if you can afford "the outrageous price" for the HP printer, you can afford a win32 CD and perhaps then _you_ could do something more than "practice networking skills and use the internet! Whopity-friggin doo!". Or even a mac (which are not expensive compared to a PC. definetly not -especially the imacs).
"I'll do everything within my power, be it donating money to carrying your kids to soccer practice, if you folks will just start writing drivers!"
How about stop bitching and be thankful to the people that _have_ written the million lines of code (including drivers) that make linux usable and enjoyable for us. Oh and start running windows. I have a feeling you two will get along just fine.
Re:Development is News? (Score:1)
Could be worse though, linuxtoday announces every prepatch to every "tree" maintained by every kernel hacker out there.
Re:Hardware support (Score:2, Insightful)
In many cases, the hardware manufacturer doesn't care about Linux support and refuses to release hardware specs to Linux driver/kernel/whatever developers (or anyone else except other hardware manufacturers who turn their chips to cards and so on). So, if your plea is directed at the hardware manufacturers, it makes sense. However, in most cases there is nothing most developers of Linux can do, so you may be barking up the wrong tree.
I remember when Creative finally released the first open source Linux drivers for the SB Live. Shortly after that, Alan Cox popped up, did some Linuxification to the drivers, and since then (more or less), the SB Live has been supported by the official kernel.
On the other hand, my Conexant [conexant.com] HCF modem is still unsupported, although we may see some drivers soon. In theory. Conexant has refused any co-operation (to the best of my knowledge) with open source developers.
Re:Hardware support (Score:1)
Next time you are buying something, ask them if it has Linux support. If they say no, don't buy it - and tell them that you are not buying it *because it doesn't have Linux support*. If enough people do that, they'll quickly get the message. Don't blame Linux for HP's shoddy standards.
Re:Development is News? (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading LKML has been one of the most enlightening experiences. Following the conversations, reports, complaints and rants you can really piece together a very lucid picture of the very complex nature of large open-source projects. The whole process of kernel development demonstrates why open-source works; how hundreds, if not thousands, of people scattered accross the globe can work on a project; how cooperating with fierce competition produces results.
Some days it's like going to the pub and discussing politics. Other days its a horse track where betting takes place on patches. Still, other days its a battlefield where someone has to prove that he can match wits with his adversaries who are also hacking the kernel. Linux kernel development shows that when you embrace all those human traits (competitiveness, arrogance, violence, love, friendship, shame, curiosity, idolitry, desire, hate, intelligence, stupidity, humor, spite, disgust, altruism), and apply them in the appropriate places at the appropriate times you can achieve much more than if you listened to what you were supposed to do. Like all of life it is a seathing, organic process that becomes what it becomes through relentless change and its ability to fulfill a particular niche. The chemestry is the drive of the hacker; the elements are the lines of code: a primordial soup of abstract ideas.
Just a couple of my thoughts at 5:00am.
Re:Hardware support (Score:1)
Re:Bleeding edge? (Score:1)
Re:ISDN?? (Score:1)
Re:Honestly.. (Score:4, Insightful)
That gets pointed out so often that I'm doubtful about making yet anothe r reply to this, but...
First off we're dealing with a 2.5.x release here, the whole 2.5.x is a developement branch, which is not meant for normal users, it's for those developing or otherwise interested in hacking the kernel.
Secondly even for stable branches (2.2.X and 2.4.X and 2.6.X one day) it is recommended that normal users stick to vendor provided kernels. For example the RedHat released 2.4.9-13 is still a valid kernel. It contains a lot of fixes that came to linux kernele main tree after the 2.4.9.
The sad mishaps with 2.4.10 et al happened because at that time the 2.4.x branch were still the developement branch. The problems with those releases didn't involve those that used distribution kernels, only those that were either adventureous enough to try the cutting-edge stuff or mistaken into believing that every 2.4.x release was to be taken as the stable-release for the normal users.
Want stability? Stick to distribution kernels. Want to toy around and hopefully learn something while adventuring with a developement kernel? Head over to www.kernelnewbies.org and rtfm....
This is not a question of getting the latest and the finest, because for normal users the latest distribution kernel released is the finest in every practical sense. (either that or you might concider changing our distribution preference)
(and by a normal user I'm referring to a user not particularly interested in developing or otherwise hacking the kernel)
Re:Communication barrier (Score:2, Informative)
Well, it is significant. (Score:2, Informative)
This story is significant because this kernel is really the first tangible departure from the 2.4 branch. Initial USB 2, a very improved scheduler, and other improvements a changelog would do a better job than I of documenting.
Like it or not, these types of changes are significant. Things like schedulers and IO end up being the reason Big Iron companies choose OSes. If Linux is getting there, I personally want to know. If you don't, hey... just move on.
Don't forget (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:or.. (Score:4, Funny)
My primary desktop machine, which runs Linux just fine, is a Pentium 166 with 128MB of RAM. Will Windows XP run OK on this, or would I have to go out and spend money to buy a new computer? (Having already spent money to buy Windows XP.)
Oh yeah, I also have an original 3c905 Ethernet card (not 3c905B). Is that still supported in Windows XP? I ask because Windows 2000 no longer supports the 3c590, which is a similar (but even older) model.
Re:Hardware support (Score:1)
Like I said earlier in this post, I have been using Linux for about three years, but my fiance has been using her camera/scanner/printer in Windows for much longer than her desire to make the switch. I have tried on various occasions to contact the manufacturers of all the products and have only gotten a reply from HP(with the link to the sourceforge site). I must appologize for abusing
Re:Hardware support (Score:2)
;)
Re:or.. (Score:1)
I've been using XP Pro since it came out (gaming) and I've come to the conclusion that MS XP is just the same old MS shit covered up with a face lift and the usual _huge_ pile of MS marketing bs. More stable? No it's not. More secure? No it's not. More value for the cost? Not even close, just a big, frustrating waste of time.
Having recently purchased a Sony PS2 and a Hauppauge TV card, I now play games in a window under Linux, either window size or full screen. Works great, Devil May Cry is a blast, no need to put up with crappy MS OS just to play a game.
Good bye MS, no more need for "MicroSlop" on my machines.
Re:No, thanks (Score:1)
Re:or.. (Score:3, Funny)
Also, I couldn't find the source code to ntoskrnl.exe. Nor the C compiler, for that matter. How am I supposed to use the system to solve problems if I can't compile and install software on my system? How do developers write and compile any code?
Re:2.4.17 (Score:1)
That's the only reason I can come up with
Re:Development is News? (Score:1)
Well then, in an effort to better myself and learn:
I TROLL WITH PRIDE!
.
Re:Communication barrier (Score:1)
Re:ISDN?? (Score:1)
The major teleconferencing companies use 3 concurrent ISDN lines to get a private nework with enough bandwidth to stream the audio and video between end-points, FWIW.
Re:or.. (Score:2, Insightful)
A few weeks ago I was walking by a local consumer high-tech place, and saw a sign out front that proclaimed Windows XP: in-store demos today! I carefully hid my business cards, posed as a home user with interest in multimedia and digital photography (quasi-true), and asked what was so cool about Windows XP.
Apparently you can have multiple users, with their own environments. Cool! You can plug a digital camera in and take pictures. Far out! You can even put pictures on the login screen. Wow!
All in all, just about the clunkiest demo I've seen of any system. Worse, the salesdroid never did answer my question, because all the digital camera stuff is not actually new in XP. I couldn't help but notice the hefty hardware (1.2 GHz Athlon) and the mediocre performance.
Sorry, not for me. I'll stick to my Linux box. 550 MHz Pentium 3. Could use a little more oomph when playing DVDs (bus speed, methinks), but works fine otherwise.
It also talks to digital cameras.
...laura