Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Linux Software

Linux 3.0 347

An anonymous reader writes "In a post to the kernel mailing list, Rob Landley, sitting in for the floating Linus, cracks the whip over what will be in Linux 3.0. His orders are on Linux and main."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux 3.0

Comments Filter:
  • by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:10AM (#4495552) Homepage
    ...sitting in for the floating Linus...

    He's achieved a transcendental state now? What are the kernel people going to do when he finally ascends to Nirvana?


  • Damn. (Score:5, Funny)

    by packeteer ( 566398 ) <packeteer.subdimension@com> on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:12AM (#4495564)
    And 2.4.19 is STILL compiling on my 50 mhz box...
    • How was that a troll? Honestly it takes a long time to compile linux on an old box. Im not saying thats bad. You ever compiled windows? Ive seen it done and it WAY mroe painful.
      • You ever compiled windows?

        Yeah. It only took a couple of hours on an 8-way dell box that cost my yearly salary. To be fair, this was a few years back, right after I graduated.

    • Re:Damn. (Score:4, Funny)

      by stud9920 ( 236753 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:31AM (#4496357)
      Just compile the much shorter Linux 0.1.81 (this will take much less time), diff it with an empty file giving you Linux -0.1.81 and diff that one with Linux 2.4.19 giving you Linux 2.4.19 -(-0.1.81)=Linux 2.4.19+0.1.81= Linux 2.6.0. If they choose to call it Linux 3.0, do the same trick with Linux 0.5.81 instead.

      Ah,those newbies. Next time RTFM !
  • 3.0? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by user32.ExitWindowsEx ( 250475 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:13AM (#4495581)
    You mean it was determined the kernel is going to be called 3.0 instead of being called 2.6 after all?
    • Re:3.0? (Score:3, Informative)

      You mean it was determined the kernel is going to be called 3.0 instead of being called 2.6 after all?

      No, the article says "3.0-pre (or 2.6-pre) series". And what's the big deal after all ?. Call it 2.6, 3.0, whatever :-)

      • Re:3.0? (Score:5, Funny)

        by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:34AM (#4495795) Homepage Journal

        Of course there's long been a convention in Linux land that less stable development kernels have odd numbers like 2.1, 2.3 and 2.5, while even numbers denote the stable series meant for pedestrian users. [Although many could argue that the VM switch during 2.4 did not exactly belong to a stable series.]

        Anyway, if we're going to have an odd number major version, then all I can say is

        "Get ready for a ride"...
    • Re:3.0? (Score:2, Insightful)

      Well, considering all the work that has been put into all the "minor" version upgrades, especially 2.2->2.4, I think there is an expectation that any major kernel version jump should have a considerable number of new major features included in it. From a geek POV, its not that big of a deal, but to some boss type making decisions on something he has only a vague grasp of (bigger version numbers are better than smaller ones) It is important, and if somewhere he reads that the change from 2.whatever he is using to 3.0 doesnt include anything of signifigance, he/she will then be dissapointed in Linux's development. If you want to encourage widespread adoption, you have to play by the business world's rules. It is unfortunate, yes, but what can you do? And if Linux is reduced to a small niche community supported OS, progress will slow down quite a bit, especially in areas like enterprise computing where companies like IBM have been throwing a great deal of weight behind the OS.
    • Re:3.0? (Score:4, Informative)

      by SurfsUp ( 11523 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:32AM (#4496359)
      You mean it was determined the kernel is going to be called 3.0 instead of being called 2.6 after all?

      It was not. Linus will decide that, not Rob Landry.
  • 3.0? bah (Score:2, Funny)

    by exspecto ( 513607 )
    i can't wait till Linux 3.11 for workgroups
    • Re:3.0? bah (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Zephaniah ( 608130 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:00AM (#4496029)
      Why is this modded up as funny? I swear I've seen this gag every single time there's an article about any software that's at version 3. Gets a bit old is all I'm saying.
  • by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:15AM (#4495603) Homepage Journal
    LKCD: Linux Kernel Crash Dumps. Really, I wish this had been there for the first half of 2.4 (testing-pre?). Supposedly it'll be able to save an image of kernel memory when the kernel panics to a special partition so that it can be recovered after reboot allowing easy analysis of the image. This alone should cut down greatly on the amount of work required to submit bug reports.
    • by NecrosisLabs ( 125672 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:42AM (#4495871)
      What would be great would be if it automatically piped it to the screen, with some form of high contrast text, like white text against a blue background...
      • by dracken ( 453199 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:29AM (#4496338) Homepage
        Bah! all you geeks are struggling to make the first gen BSOD. Look at Cowboyneal's article last friday

        Posted by Cowboyneal on Sunday October 20, @11:16AM
        from the yippee-new-windows-features! dept.

        In a surprise announcement today, Microsoft President Steve Ballmer revealed that the Redmond based company will allow computer resellers and end-users to customize the appearance of the Blue Screen of Death (abbreviated BSOD), the screen that displays when the Windows operating system crashes.

        The move comes as the result of numerous focus groups and customer surveys done by Microsoft. Thousands of Microsoft customers were asked, "What do you spend the most time doing on your computer?" A surprising number of respondents said, "Staring at a Blue Screen of Death". At 54 percent, it was the top answer, beating the second place answer "Downloading Pornography" by an easy 12 points.

        "We immediately recognized this as a great opportunity for ourselves, our channel partners, and especially our customers." explained the excited Ballmer to a room full of reporters.

        Immense video displays were used to show images of the new customizable BSOD screen side-by-side with the older static version. Users can select from a collection of "BSOD Themes", allowing them to instead have a Mauve Screen of Death or even a Paisley Screen of Death. Graphics and multimedia content can now be incorporated into the screen, making the BSOD the perfect conduit for delivering product information and entertainment to Windows users.

        The Blue Screen of Death is by far the most recognized feature of the Windows (tm) operating system, and as a result, Microsoft has historically insisted on total control over its look-and-feel. This recent departure from that policy reflects Microsoft's recognition of the Windows desktop itself as the "ultimate information portal." By default, the new BSOD will be configured to show a random selection of Microsoft product information whenever the system crashes. Microsoft channel partners can negotiate with Microsoft for the right to customize the BSOD on systems they ship.

        Major computer resellers such as Compaq, Gateway, and Dell are already lining up for premier placement on the new and improved BSOD.

        Ballmer concluded by getting a dig in against the Open Source community. "This just goes to show that Microsoft continues to innovate at a much faster pace than open source. I have yet to see any evidence that Linux even has a BSOD, let alone a customizable one."

        • Go look at []:

          "MessageBackColor=8 To specify the BSOD (Blue Screen Of Death) background (screen) color. Default is blue (1). See "BLUE (OR ANY OTHER COLOR) SCREEN OF DEATH", also in TIPS95.TXT [part of W95-11D.ZIP], or in MYTIPS31.TXT [part of W31-11D.ZIP], for complete details.

          MessageTextColor=C To specify the BSOD (Blue Screen Of Death) foreground (text) color. Default is bright white (F). See "BLUE (OR ANY OTHER COLOR) SCREEN OF DEATH", also in TIPS95.TXT [part of W95-11D.ZIP], or in MYTIPS31.TXT [part of W31-11D.ZIP], for complete details."

          Oh well, nice attempt ;-)
    • Dumping the panic to swap seems more sensible than allocating another partition. This is how other OSes do it.

      • I can only guess, but two reasons this might be the case are that the swap doesn't necessarily have to reside in its own partition but can be in a file or simply unused on a system, or (more likely) that this prevents the possibility of obliterating the dump in the process of trying to view it. Also, the software apparently lets you do a 'crash dump' from a live system, which would be inconvenient to have overwrite swap...

        This seems like the safest option, because it's isolated from the Linux system at any other point, but it would be nice to get the swap option as well for people who aren't interested in the fancy stuff unless something goes seriously wrong.

  • WhooHoo (Score:3, Interesting)

    by papasui ( 567265 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:16AM (#4495611) Homepage
    Ready - Rewrite of the console layer (James Simmons)
    This one specifically should significantly help Linux take off on more devices.
  • Linux 3.0 (Score:4, Funny)

    by TonyZahn ( 534930 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:17AM (#4495624) Homepage
    I think that, in response to current marketing trends, Linux 3.0 should be given a 2-letter version id instead of a number.

    How about:
    Linux IS (For those unbelievers...)
    Linux ME (friendlier, bloatier, used like a verb)
    Linux XL (for those kernel with everything)
    Linux ** (just take care of all the letter names at once)
  • Why do i care? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:18AM (#4495627) Homepage Journal
    Not to sound like a troll, or flaming developers, but seriously, from a users standpoint, why do i care?

    What i have now works great, give me concrete reasons i should worry about a new release.

    Now as a developer i DO care.. I'm just looking at this from the stand point of a normal user ( my customers ) who hear the same stuff from M$ or apple.. 'new and improved, you must upgrade now'... And we used that as a selling point for Linux..
    • As a developer, you are a user of the linux kernel. Most people who actually use linux and know things about it are going to care. Cherishing the opinions of people who know nothing about linux at all is a very odd way of thinking about it, if you ask me.

      Perhaps Steven Spielberg should not care about the latest developments in movie cameras beccause I can't tell the difference?
    • Re:Why do i care? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by FooBarWidget ( 556006 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:43AM (#4495888)
      Because Slashdot is a site for technical people. They care. I'm not a kernel developer, but I care about Linux development.
      If you don't care, then:
      1) You do not belong here. Go find yourself a different news source.
      2) Change your account settings to hide Linux-related stories.
    • Re:Why do i care? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dattaway ( 3088 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:02AM (#4496047) Homepage Journal
      why do i care?

      The kernel is the framework that connects to the hardware. Its like the chassis on your car, designed to give all components a secure mounting point to connect to each other. Without the kernel, all your component software would still be functional, but not to useful as they would be laying on the ground in a proof of concept state. The kernel supplies all the hardware to hook things up and make them into a fully functional machine.

      The init process and scripts, libraries, and applications are the engine, powertrain components, interior, and all the other details to make a complete operating system. The kernel is simply the framework and body to make it all possible. Compile options allow you to have lightweight race car or a dumptruck.
  • so 2.6 will be 3.0 ... i hope there is effort to make it stabler and more efficient than the 2.5 builds i've tried. doesn't have any info on this...

    does anybody know of a roadmap (iirc, there is no official one)
    or good guess as to when 3.0 (or 2.6) will be released?
    • Re:roadmap? (Score:2, Informative)

      by javahacker ( 469605 )
      The 2.5 builds were development builds, they are supposed to be unstable, because they are full of code that is being tested.

      Everyone, especially Linus, hopes that the 2.6 (or 3.0) series has a more stable start than the 2.4 series did.

      The real answer is when Linus and the core kernel developers believe it is ready, and there is no schedule, because they don't know when that will be. The answer I believe everyone is hoping for, is by the end of the year, since that will let it be included in the next release cycle by the major distributions (Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake), who are probably targeting releases late in the first quarter of the year.
  • by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:18AM (#4495633) Journal

    Again, some of the things on this list won't make it into 3.0. It's just candidates. But everything that is NOT on this list in about 7 days is probably going to become 3.1 material by default.

    Speak now, or till 3.1 hold your peace...

    Ok, lets all acknowledge the obvious cracks at 3.11 (like what happened with Windows). Let's sort of communally agree that we're not going to find 'em funny, before a really dumb thread enters the picture, okay?

  • Not Version Bloat. (Score:5, Informative)

    by muixA ( 179615 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:22AM (#4495670) Journal
    Before anyone gets going on it.
    There have been MAJOR features added to this Kernel.
    - UML
    - New VM
    - New Scheduler
    - Finer SMP Locking
    - At least 2 new Journaled FS (Reiserfs4 and XFS?)
    - A new POSIX thread library/API.

    Does anyone know if ALSA will be included?

    We will finally be able to forget about the 1980's style /dev/dsp :)


    • by bripeace ( 112526 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:33AM (#4495779) Homepage
      Alsa is already in..

      Resier4 isn't in yet.. but he plans on submitting it on the 27th.. at least thats what his last email said.

      XFS is already in there though
    • by macdaddy ( 38372 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:52AM (#4495962) Homepage Journal
      We will finally be able to forget about the 1980's style...

      But I liked the 80's style. I haven't worn out my baggy denim jacket yet and my spike hanging in there as good as ever. On a sidenote, to you men with big bald spots, I've been told that a spike is one way to conceal a growing bald spot. Become a PHB now! I want my IIe back.

    • Not to mention all of the other features that have been added between 2.0 and 2.4, all of which should contribute to the decision to change the major number. It would actually be really interesting to see how much of the code hasn't been changed during the 2.x series.
    • I've heard one of the goals with the next major Linux kernel is Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) support for hot-docking of external devices and hot-swapping of devices on certain types of PCI slots.

      With automatic hardware detection and configuration of peripherals in a standardized manner, maybe it might convince peripheral manufacturers to write Linux drivers en masse.
    • by rweir ( 96112 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @12:45PM (#4497195) Homepage Journal
      ALSA is defintely in, as is things like USB2, Access Control Lists, new NTFS support (it doesn't completely trash partitions now!), hot pluggable CPUs, software suspend (hit a key combo and save the whole system state to the harddrive), support for drives >2TB, and a whole lot more [].

      BTW, I have to love a community where this sort of thing is discussed on a site called KernelNewbies:)
  • cruise (Score:3, Funny)

    by Deton8 ( 522248 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:22AM (#4495672)
    Screw the kernel, I want to hear more about these geek cruises [http]!
    • Not if the female wildlife onboard is geek women. What we need is a geek cruise with non-geek women . :-)
      • I don't know about geek women, but this appears to be sponsored by the same people who threw extravagant and very memorable parties at the ALS in Atlanta over the years (Linux Journal.) I suspect many of the women I saw were in sales at the many booths and oh did they look good. Did you know kernel hackers could put on a show and dance too? You might be surprised.
  • by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:22AM (#4495675)
    Automount of removeable media like every other modern OS - Windows does it. MacOS does it. Even DOS 6.2 did it. Why doesn't Linux automount (please note that I did not say 'Autoplay') removeable media? (Note, I only use 2.4 kernels in servers. This may have changed recently, and I justed missed it, but...)

    • Check out something like WOLK [] - it includes the Supermount patches, which do exactly what you want (as well as automount of NFS shares upon first access).
    • Why doesn't Linux automount (please note that I did not say 'Autoplay') removeable media? (Note, I only use 2.4 kernels in servers. This may have changed recently, and I justed missed it, but...)

      In my Red Hat servers I do this with the autofs daemon. I've used it successfully with both CD-ROM and ZIP drives, and had no problems sharing automounted drives with Samba.

      Mandrake has for years now (with the exception of the 8.1 release, I believe) gone one step further by using a kernel patched with "Supermount", which is a "true" automount like you are probably thinking of.

      So in fact, Linux has had this ability for quite some time now.
    • This one thing is a major hurdle for _some_ new users. My wife in particular gets very annoyed with having to (u)mount disks before using/ejecting them.

      • Re:agreed (Score:2, Informative)

        by Lumpy ( 12016 )
        ONLY intel users...

        anyone that has used a MAC or any other proper system that uses a powered eject or locking media like it is supposed to be so that you dont trash the filesystem on the disc.
    • by Ektanoor ( 9949 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:37AM (#4495826) Journal
      Are you from Mars? There are two versions of automount in Linux and there is something called "supermount". But if you use Linux for servers, then you are deeply wrong if you put these things into action. The automount feature is not embedded to Linux just for that reason. A good secured server should in no way give a chance to automount third party media. Only the admin should do it and he shall have a chance to do it flexibly and correctly. Believe me, that this is the true way of administration. Maybe where you work people may think it is too bad that Linux doesn't automount every piece of crap that may either trash the system or give a chance for information leaks. But, on my years of sysadmin I consider that this is one of the best features not only of Linux but of the whole *NIX family.
      • What are you going off about? How can having a CD automount give way to having "information leaks" (on a read only media?!?) or "trash the system"?? In order to do this you would have to run something on the CD, which is a totally different point of security. You're rambling about nothing.

        • by Ektanoor ( 9949 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:28AM (#4496325) Journal
          Very unfortunate example of yours. The CD is trashed, someone inserts that piece of trash into this super-feature automount. However, this dodo, instead of checking that dumb CD, he goes take some coffee. In seconds, the machine starts to sloooooooooow doooown as the dumbish CD-reader kicks more and more interrupts into the system. True story. I drunk his cup of coffee while he ran away to KICK THAT DAMN CD OUTTA THE SERVER 'CAUSE IT IS STUCK INSIDE!!!

          Other example. Mr. A. H. Wannabeahacker has an account in some machine. He inserts the super-pupper CD - CrACkZ, hACKz and SuXXs. Plays a little bit and turns the server into a washing machine. Another true story. Those who work at University computer classes may have seen this a few times...

          So people. I know that the autofs features are pretty cool. I do use them. But in user workstations ONLY! The lack of automount in a desktop station is a distro problem not a kernel one. All the basic infrastructure for automount is in the kernel already. However there should be some more tweaking on it, as certain types of ZIPs, CDs and HDDs may seriously influence the performance of the kernel while being mounted. It would be great to see some some kind of double checking of errors so that certain cascades wouldn't happen.
        • Consider a CD with Rock Ridge that has device files (/dev/hda comes to mind) with ownership to a non-root user. A user can get around /dev/ permissions by doing this if it's mounted without nodev. Also consider a suid executable owned by root. A user can run it and get root privs unless the nosuid option is set. When one user can mount as another user (as supermount would do) or with the wrong options, that's a security hole. Secondly, suppose root is copying stuff off a CD or wants to access it remotely. Do we let joe user umount it by pressing eject?
    • by Inoshiro ( 71693 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:43AM (#4495884) Homepage
      DOS had stateless device access. Until you tried to look at a device, DOS would not touch the device (floppy drive, hd, or CDROM drive). But when you did change to the device, it would try and read in its base directory and bootsector.

      Windows emulates its behaviour towards floppy disk drives, as you will find out very painfully if you click on the A: on a computer without a floppy drive (which, for me, is all of them), or without a disk in the drive.

      Automount only works on hardware that gives feedback on when media is inserted (such as a CDROM drive). To prevent Badness (TM) in the blocklayer, the automount has traditionally been eschewed in favour of explicit mount. Why? Try removing a CD that's being read from in Win9x, and watch the blue-screen "Please insert CD labelled ..." as the kernel catches a block layer exception. This can be worked around by adding drive locks every time the drive is accessed, but it's generally considered to be a hairy problem best solved by having a smarter user.

      Of course, many distributions include the (separate) automount patch anyways, and people who want this behaviour won't be rolling their own kernels any time soon.
      • Point taken on the blue screen, but how about in Linux when a process running off the CD freezes your console, adn the only way to get around it is to reboot (since you can't just open the CD and have the process die like in windows)? This has happened to me several times in the past. Nont to mention the number of time sI was in windows and wanted to read a serial # off of the cd, so I just open it, blue screen appears, write it down, put it back in, hit enter. No harm done. I construe the opening of cd == death to be a feature, not a detriment.

        • Actually, what's with CD's and intel machines?
          It seems the only thing that locks my windows. The whole damn machine just falls asleep while waiting for CD seek. Same with debian. On almost any pc it's the same.
          Do OS's traditionally implement these crappily or is it in the implementations in modern ide/mobo/cdrom hardware?
      • My first action after installing Red Hat, every time:

        rpm -e magicdev

        -Paul Komarek
    • I know mandrake has this feature, at least the one you describe, as 'supermount'. Autofs/Automount is there and has been for a long time, but is less suited for removable devices than it is nfs mounts. Supermount is a far cleaner implementation for local devices. People on kernel-devel would probably argue that the implementation could be done using AutoFS and that would make supermount redundant, but I like supermount.... Between supermount and lpp, you have a decent Desktop OS...
  • Reiser4 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KagatoLNX ( 141673 ) <> on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:22AM (#4495678) Homepage

    I *sooooo* hope the Hans gets off his butt and gets ReiserFS 4 in this one. If you follow the LKML closely (or just read the Kernel Traffic, []) then you may have heard he's sweating a bit on getting it in.

    Reiser4 may just revolutionize the way the some people do stuff. I mean, next system I want to be able to do:

    # cat /etc/passwd
    jim: x:100:100:jim:/home/jim:/bin/bash
    # cat /etc/passwd/jim/uid
    # echo /bin/ksh > /etc/passwd/jim/shell
    # cat /etc/passwd
    jim: x:100:100:jim:/home/jim:/bin/ksh

    All that *and* have transactional data commits with a very small performance hit!

    (ReiserFS Trolls: Go ahead, bring it on!)

    • Re:Reiser4 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by BJH ( 11355 )
      He's going to submit it on the 27th. Linus gets back on the 27th, but probably won't actually start looking at pending patches until the 29th or 30th. I'd say it's got a 50-50 chance of getting in to the first 2.6-pre kernel, but an excellent chance of getting in before 2.6 is actually released (don't worry about the Halloween freeze - there hasn't been a major kernel release in living memory that didn't have some enormous chunk of code dropped into it at the last minute).
  • by Saint Aardvark ( 159009 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:25AM (#4495703) Homepage Journal
    ...that he's left out SearchKing's on-the-fly-Google-re-ranking patch.

    Guess we know which kernel guru has started taking $ from Google!

  • New console layer (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jaymzter ( 452402 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:27AM (#4495723) Homepage
    I for one am totally psyched about re-writing the console sublayer. It's so aesthetically annoying to be running a multi-headed system, yet be reserved to only one head when on a tty. I think this has a high geek factor
  • by bripeace ( 112526 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:28AM (#4495733) Homepage
    I've been reading the list and well..
    This is about 1 of 3 different posts talking about 'what needs to be shown to linus when he gets back'

    This is also the very first post of this one thread specific.. theres been about 5 or 6 more major things added to the list that people are hoping to get in ... Linus essentially said he wasn't leaving anyone in charge so they're trying to get one main list to give to linus (with links where possible) so that he can quickly go threw everything when he gets back

    Also.. it seems noone on the list is sure whether this will be 3.0 or 2.6 at least noones given any real definate answer as far as I could see..

    the lastest version of this list is here.. which compiles all the other threads in one.. is here []

  • by ohboy-sleep ( 601567 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:29AM (#4495750) Homepage
    By the way, Linux 3.0 will officially be known as "Linux III: The Domination" [] and when they get around to Linux 4.0 it'll be "Linux 4: Citizens on Patrol" []
  • by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:33AM (#4495778) Homepage
    Many of you dont like it, but delivering Linux to the masses... the LPP (Linux Progress Patch) is highly important and need to be incorperated into the kernel so that it doesnt become a "left behind" item.

    Yes, not seeing all the bootup messages is not highly important... but to a timid user that freaks when the computer beeps it is important. (I agree, people like that need to be kept away from technology... but these people here HAVE to work.)

    Linux's acceptance on the desktop needs to have "eye-candy" like this that doesnt lower performance.
  • AOL??? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by brunes69 ( 86786 ) <> on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:41AM (#4495859) Homepage

    There are still 7 days till the end of Linus's cruise, but that's not much time to get guinea pigs to publicly pipe up with a hearty "AOL!" of support for your work...

    I didn't think a hearty endorsement by AOL would be good news for anything!

    • "AOL!" in this context means "Me Too!" It came about because people associated replies (usenet, web discussion boards) that had "Me Too!" and no useful content with newbies, e.g. AOL users.

      Always messes me up. I always think "Army Of Light"...

  • by Ektanoor ( 9949 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:03AM (#4496053) Journal
    Well, this is what some people really wish:

    Internet Explorer.
    The Eternal Flat Desktop for dummies.
    Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Solitaire.
    Palladin .NET
    Easter Eggs
    Make desktop "user ready". Forget the flame.
    Forget the bugs, claim the features.
    Add 100Kb EULA into the kernel itself.
    Sell it and yourself to Bill Gates.
    Rename it to Windows.
    Sell it for $400 and threaten everyone who will not follow you.
    Write a small text, anonymously authored - "Why I switched from Linux to Windows" and claim how your customers are deeply satisfied.

  • More complete list (Score:5, Informative)

    by awptic ( 211411 ) < minus math_god> on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:03AM (#4496059)
    This page contains a complete list of every new feature that has gone into 2.5, and other features waiting to be integrated and their status: []
  • by DocSnyder ( 10755 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @12:17PM (#4496885)
    How could my server ever reach 1000 days of uptime with Linus throwing out new major kernel releases every two years? ;-)

In space, no one can hear you fart.