Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Kernel 2.6.12 Released

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the kernel-popping dept.

Linux 291

Mad Merlin writes "Linux kernel 2.6.12 has been released! Kerneltrap has a brief summary on it. The changelog is only partial however: 'The full ChangeLog ended up missing, because I only have the history from 2.6.12-rc2 in my git archives, but if you want to, you can puzzle it together by taking the 2.6.12 changelog and merging it with the -rc1 and -rc2 logs in the testing directory. The file that says ChangeLog-2.6.12 only contains the stuff from -rc2 onward.' As always you can find the changelog and the source at kernel.org"

cancel ×

291 comments

Erm (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852903)

Just Say No To 2.6(R)

Re:Erm (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852920)

No

I've been waiting... (-1)

Anv*l (665350) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852904)

Finally.

Jack... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852913)

...fucking ass...

Re:I've been waiting... (1)

the_sidewinder (850641) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852915)

The Penguin has landed!

Re:I've been waiting... (0, Flamebait)

almostinsane (770051) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853315)

Linux sucks

first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852909)

blah!

Just after ATI... (4, Funny)

xafan (836020) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852914)

Just after hell froze over and ATI released new video drivers for Linux specifically supporting 2.6.11, 2.6.12 gets released.

Let me start off the collective "ARRGGGHHH!"

Re:Just after ATI... (1)

Golradir (807889) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852924)

O how I like nVidia...

Maybe? (5, Interesting)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853012)

Could this be part of the reason hardware manufacturers don't put a high priority for Linux drivers?

Re:Maybe? (1)

cuerty (671497) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853074)

If they just desing right the drivers or release the spects, ...

But the problem is, nothing in the arquitecture of how the drivers works has change, as long as I see in the changelog, so why should that driver not work? It seems like a "if kernel_version 2.6.11 then wait another six months".

Re:Maybe? (4, Insightful)

big_groo (237634) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853348)

This is precisely why I choose Nvidia hardware - and I always will. Nvidia took the time to ensure that I can have accelerated graphics on my choice of OS, so I will reward them with my pocketbook. You should do the same.

Re:Just after ATI... (1)

Jarlsberg (643324) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853046)

Wow, every negative, but valid, comments immediately gets marked as a troll. ;=)

But, does 2.6.12 really break the new ATI drivers? That`s kinda wacky...

Re:Just after ATI... (1)

hungrygrue (872970) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853060)

I know that the ATI Direct Rendering Manager is currently broken for 2.6.12 - at least building for amd64. Oh well, no TuxRacer for a couple days until it gets sorted out.

Re:Just after ATI... (5, Insightful)

mr_z_beeblebrox (591077) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853087)

Just after hell froze over and ATI released new video drivers for Linux specifically supporting 2.6.11, 2.6.12 gets released.

As someone who specifically uses 2.4.x kernels due to certain support issues, I give you permission not to upgrade. Matter of fact to go further I give you this checklist to decide any and all software upgrades in the future:
Does your current software solve your needs?
Does the upgrade mess with something you care about?
Does the upgrade fix a vital security issue?
Are you a developer?
I would discuss the answers in an if.. then... else sort of way. But, if you can upgrade your kernel you should be able to figure it out. Oh, one more thing, if you do not know the answer to any of these questions, you shouldn't even think about upgrading. Do not run code simply because it has been written. Code is written to address needs, use the code that was wrtten for yours and be happy that there is code for other people to.

Re:Just after ATI... (1)

neon-fx (777448) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853165)

Would "I fogot to compile the APM power managements into my last kernel and have been to lazy to do another compile with 2.6.11" be a good enough reason to upgrade to the new kernel?

Re:Just after ATI... (1)

End11 (740392) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853193)

laziness is a good enough reason to do anything.

Re:Just after ATI... (2, Funny)

David Hume (200499) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853375)


laziness is a good enough reason to do anything


I thought laziness was a good enough reason not to do anything....

Re:Just after ATI... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853213)

...why don't you just buy a REAL video card instead of that ATI-junk ?

Wow! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852918)

Let's see, Open Solaris, the latest Linux Kernel ... what next, Longhorn?

Re:Wow! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852921)

Would GNU Hurd be too much to ask? :-)

Re:Wow! (2, Funny)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853352)

Umm, wouldn't armageddon come first before Longhorn...and if armageddon does indeed come then we can safely say RMS taking a bath is not far away...

Now, there's the right message (5, Insightful)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852919)

The full ChangeLog ended up missing, because I only have the history from 2.6.12-rc2 in my git archives, but if you want to, you can puzzle it together by taking the 2.6.12 changelog and merging it with the -rc1 and -rc2 logs in the testing directory

Nothing instills confidence in those who are not convinced that Linux is mature enough for their application like the messages: "I was too lazy to download these files to put together a changelog" and
"the changelog wasn't in our CMS."

Re:Now, there's the right message (2)

tvon (169105) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852941)

I agree, that's just embarassing.

Re:Now, there's the right message (2, Funny)

Curtman (556920) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853168)

Embarassing to who?

People who disagree with me are by definition crazy. (Until I change my mind, when they can suddenly become upstanding citizens. I'm flexible, and not black-and-white.)
- Linus Torvalds [newsforge.com]
There you have it.. Clearly he's in the right.

Re:Now, there's the right message (1, Insightful)

syynnapse (781681) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852944)

I take it as a good indicator of who is working on the code... people who cant get their lives together often write great code.

Stupidest thing I've ever read, right there (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852963)

People who lack organizational skills do not write great code.

Re:Stupidest thing I've ever read, right there (0, Troll)

syynnapse (781681) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853039)

nobody said "lacking in orginizational skills".
asshat.

ah, the apologist is touchy, too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853088)

Did I hurt your widdle feewings?

No, you didn't say "lacking in organizational skills". You said something which means the exact same thing. Are you desnse?

I like how you added "asshat" afterward. That'll show me!

PS: Eat a dick.

Re:Now, there's the right message (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852947)

"the changelog wasn't in our CMS."

Are you living under a rock or did you probably notice that the core linux developers switched their cms?

mod him down (-3 flamebait)

Re:Now, there's the right message (2, Interesting)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852969)

Whoooaaa buddy.

I'm a card-carrying member of the FSF, a Linux user, a supporter, and didn't mean to HURT anybody. I meant to make an obvservation, and hope that it perhaps HELPS somebody.

Re:Now, there's the right message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853218)

"I'm a card-carrying member of the FSF, a Linux user, a supporter, and didn't mean to HURT anybody."

Slashdot's changed from the sub-20k ID days. It appears to have unintentional but the tone of your first post will attract moderation from anti-Linux fanatics and paid astroturfers like flies to Joe's.

Re:Now, there's the right message (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853301)

the core linux developers switched their cms?

Don't mean to beat a dead horse here or anything (maybe I do actually)... But the decision to use Bitkeeper in the first place was a bad one. So was the decision to reinvent the wheel. SVN [popies.net] works fine.

Re:Now, there's the right message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853356)

SVN is centralised. Thats a big no-no for real work of that scale.

Re:Now, there's the right message (2, Insightful)

Chiisu (462604) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852973)

Sums up Linux perfectly

Priorities (3, Insightful)

etymxris (121288) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852979)

Sure, a full changelog would be nice. But Linus, I imagine, isn't too worried about appearing here isn't worth the effort. His time's better spent on actual kernel code.

This is the type of thing that happens when engineers manage projects rather than business people. That's not a criticism.

Re:Priorities (1)

etymxris (121288) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852989)

Accidentally deleted some text there. Should read as follows:

Sure, a full changelog would be nice. But Linus, I imagine, isn't too worried about appearing "professional" here. A full changelog just isn't worth the effort. His time's better spent on actual kernel code.

This is the type of thing that happens when engineers manage projects rather than business people. That's not a criticism.

Re:Priorities (4, Funny)

Speare (84249) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853372)

This is the type of thing that happens when engineers manage projects rather than business people.

Yeah, I hate it when engineers manage the business people.

Some explaination in the changelog... (4, Informative)

Whyte (65556) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853037)


commit 1da177e4c3f41524e886b7f1b8a0c1fc7321cac2
Author: Linus Torvalds
Date: Sat Apr 16 15:20:36 2005 -0700

Linux-2.6.12-rc2

Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.

Let it rip!

Re:Some explaination in the changelog... (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853064)

Good explanation.

Re:Now, there's the right message (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853151)

That's why those people should employ other people to tell them that it's mature enough.

Re:Now, there's the right message (5, Insightful)

TorKlingberg (599697) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853287)

Still better than "We won't tell you what this 20 MB binary patch does, but install it anyway. Trust us."

Re:Now, there's the right message (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853309)

Oh come on, what does Linux maturity for applications have to do with easily complete and clearly formatted changelogs, really? It helps if you're a developer, but that has nothing to do with maturity for application usage... with the end users.

One thing I'm a bit confused about... (4, Interesting)

Sheetrock (152993) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852928)

When and why did they stop the system of releasing stable versions on the even minor releases (2.4.x, 2.6.x, etc.) and unstable/development versions on the odd minor releases (2.5.x, 2.7.x, etc.)?

Re:One thing I'm a bit confused about... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852935)

Perhaps once they realized that every one of their releases was unstable?

Re:One thing I'm a bit confused about... (0, Troll)

0racle (667029) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852955)

When 2.6 was released. It was pretty well publicized around here, have you been under a rock since 2.6.0?

Re:One thing I'm a bit confused about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852966)

That troll sucked.

Making it stable... (2, Insightful)

fprog (552772) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853009)

They should really try to froze features,
at least subsystem by subsystem,
for a couple of months and perform
a deep code review (ala OpenBSD)
for bug hunting and security analysis.

I can understand that some part of the kernel
still needs heavy development
(ReiserFS, VM, some specific broken drivers),
but other parts should be revised
and certified gold bug free.

At least that would give us a roadmap,
on what is to be fixed before
they jump to 2.7.x series.

I mean what's the point to break stuff
at every .x release in a stable series,
that doesn't make any sense to me.

How are 3rd party drivers people, applications
are supposed to "trust" a 2.6 kernel,
if it break stuff continuously.

"You're Nvidia or ATI card works in 2.6.x but not in 2.6.x+2,
and VMware doesn't work in 2.6.y but only in 2.6.y+1"

As long as they keep breaking stuff,
I'm keeping my "stable" linux servers
on the 2.4.x series.

Re:Making it stable... (1)

Ambassador Kosh (18352) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853133)

If you handn't noticed that all of those things that break are binary only drivers. vmware, ati and nvidia all depend on a binary kernel module. I have been using 2.6.x for a long time on desktops, servers and laptops and had no issues however the only proprietary apps that are even installed are acrobat and opera and those are only for testing stuff.

For servers none of those should be an issue at all.

Re:Making it stable... (1)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853200)

"If you handn't noticed that all of those things that break are binary only drivers. vmware, ati and nvidia all depend on a binary kernel module."

If that were true, I wouldn't have to have a Promise IDE card to be able to use my CD drive. It used to work... but now using the SATA and PATA ports at the same time is impossible with Linux.

Re:Making it stable... (4, Funny)

njcoder (657816) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853159)

Just make it easy
for us to read and do not
try and write haikus. :)

Re:Making it stable... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853267)

"a deep code review (ala OpenBSD)"

In what way can a code review be deep when the release cycle is 6 months in an absolute fashion? Subtract the time for freezing when a new release is prepared. So much for the 'deep code review'.

Don't believe everything Theo tells you.

Re:One thing I'm a bit confused about... (2, Informative)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853025)

Because development was going quickly and they didn't want to lose momentum. We're getting new features much sooner than we otherwise would have.

The downside is that 2.6 kernels are now a regression-fest that makes Windows look positively stable. They claim distros are able to stabalize their own kernels, which is a theory I have yet to see put into practice. The idea now is to find a kernel version that doesn't have any show-stopper regressions for your hardware.

Re:One thing I'm a bit confused about... (1)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853066)

Yes, but if you wanted new features sooner under the old system, all you had to do was use the 2.odd.x series of kernels. I don't see that we gained anything by throwing out the idea of having a stable series of kernels. How can we convince/ask Linus et al to return to the old system?

Re:One thing I'm a bit confused about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853211)

Not enough testers were using the 2.odd series, and no distributions were shipping it.

With 2.6, bugs are being ironed out MUCH faster, and lots of features are stabilizing quickly, which means more features can be added.

Re:One thing I'm a bit confused about... (1, Troll)

ArbitraryConstant (763964) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853232)

"With 2.6, bugs are being ironed out MUCH faster"

Unfortunately you can't update to a new release to fix the bugs you have, because every new version is so riddled with regressions that it's just as bad as the last one. Bugs are replaced, not fixed.

Re:One thing I'm a bit confused about... (3, Insightful)

The_Wilschon (782534) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853317)

Yes, but one of Linux's strengths, and selling points, has traditionally been its stability. If we throw that out the window, then people will start drifting away to other systems, and then we'll have even *fewer* people using the buggy kernels. Calling buggy code "production" is a M$ tactic. And one of the reasons I moved away from that platform.

Re:One thing I'm a bit confused about... (2)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853334)

Actually... the regular 2.6 kernels are pretty stable, or at least not more unstable than past stable kernel series like 2.4 were. This is especially true if you run the 2.6.x.y kernels (like 2.6.11.12, currently) instead of staying on the bleeding (mainline) edge by constantly upgrading to the latest -rc or even git snapshots.

I for one think that it's all a good idea: instead of backporting features (from devel to stable, or stable to old stable), we're simply back-porting bugfixes applied to mainline to a relatively short-lived stable off-shot so that people can get fixes without new features that also introduce new bugs. That should help stability.

Outside of that... well, yeah, I guess one could complain about the lack of proper regression testing, QA prior to releases, release schedules and all that. But the truth is that these things have not only hindered but actually *helped* a great deal when it comes to Linux development, so I don't see why they should be abolished. In the end, it's the developers that decide how things should work - and that's good, because it's the developers, not management (this includes everyone who's not involved with development), who know best.

That being said, the statement that distros don't roll their own kernels isn't true, anyway. Take Fedora, for example - if you read Dave Jones' blog, you'll notice that a lot of effort *is* going into stabilizing these and making them regression-free. How many distros do you know that ship with vanilla kernels? I know exactly one - Slackware. Every other (big) one uses patched kernels, no matter whether it's Debian, SuSE, RedHat, or whatever else there is.

Re:One thing I'm a bit confused about... (1)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853100)

A year ago, and because it works better (the -mm kernels are the testbed for newer features now). It's been on Slashdot, Kerneltrap, lwn etc., too.

Re:One thing I'm a bit confused about... (1)

MooseGuy529 (578473) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853373)

I don't know when, but the reason was this: Instead of having a 2.6 and 2.7 branch, they wanted to be able to accelerate integration of new developments. So the 2.6 series is under heavier development, and sometimes requires very minor bugfixes and such. Those go in the fourth part of the version number. I personally like this strategy since it means you can still rely on stable versions when you need them, but you also get to use nifty new features without waiting years for the development branch to become stable.

mod do3n (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852931)

Theo says it's crap (0, Offtopic)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852937)

So I'd stick with Windows if I were you.

I like my kernels like I like my women: (0, Offtopic)

Luke727 (547923) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852946)

Stuffed in a bag and popped.

Linux+OpenSolaris (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852959)

Random question: Does anyone think there will be anything benificial to linux to borrow from solaris now that the source is out, or does their license even allow this?

Re:Linux+OpenSolaris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12852999)

OT Answer: When OpenSolaris was announced, a lot of the idiots round here started posting excitedly about how all the features from OpenSolaris could be ripped out and put into Linux (NOT the point of open source). However, Sun licenced OpenSolaris under the CDDL, which is incompatible with the GPL. This made a lot of people very upset.

So the answer is no.

Re:Linux+OpenSolaris (4, Interesting)

Arker (91948) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853003)

Does anyone think there will be anything benificial to linux to borrow from solaris now that the source is out, or does their license even allow this?

Short answer: No, and no.

Longer answer, while there are a few places Solaris still has an advantage, you can't just rip code out of one and stick it another. The structure of the code is quite different, so an implementation in one codebase just won't transfer to another cleanly.

And two, the CDDL, besides being horridly written, is clearly and intentionally not GPL compatible, so even if you could transplant code like that technically, it wouldn't work legally.

Re:Linux+OpenSolaris (0, Redundant)

zymano (581466) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853164)

functions can't be used ?

Re:Linux+OpenSolaris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853350)

Ummm, he already answered that, dumbass. See above.

Re:Linux+OpenSolaris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853384)

Simple functions with little or no dependencies can obviously be transfered. That's what he was referring to, and you are the dumbass for failing to understand that.

x86_64 ctl32 removed (3, Informative)

etymxris (121288) | more than 9 years ago | (#12852961)

It's some compatibility thing that allows 32 bit apps to run on a 64-bit OS. Shouldn't be a problem for GPL drivers, but will break older proprietary drivers. I believe nvidia just updated their drivers to be compatible with 2.6.12. But VMWare still won't work, last I checked.

troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853024)

troll

Poor Linus (4, Interesting)

RickPartin (892479) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853027)

Sorry about being off-topic but I've been thinking, since Linus is a normal guy and not some super human CEO, he must go through a "family tech support guy" hell that only exists in only our darkest of nightmares. I pity him.

Re:Poor Linus (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853167)

Not an issue since he switched to a Mac

Linus is our Family Tech Support Guy! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853197)

he must go through a "family tech support guy" hell that only exists in only our darkest of nightmares

It seems today
that all we see
is Longhorn delayed
and OS X on PeeCees
but where's the free and open source
on which we used to rely?
Luckily there's our Family Tech Support Guy,
the guy who makes the kernel
that runs on all the hardware
we bought at Fry's.
He's
our
Family
Tech
Support
Guy!

Hmm. Sorry. I got carried away :).
Thanks Linus for all your hard work!

borked (2, Interesting)

Sparr0 (451780) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853034)

Yet another kernel release without fixed/rolledback highpoint RAID drivers :( Kernel Oopses and Panics abound and they insist on keeping the broken code merged in around 2.6.9. Well, there's always hope for 2.6.13!

Re:borked (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853040)

They should remove support for highpoint RAID drivers altogether, to protect people from making the mistake of using those pieces of crap.

Re:borked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853082)

yeah, suckers like you that keep coming back for more... why SHOULD they bother to fix it?

2.6.13 (4, Informative)

jd (1658) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853098)

There was a discussion on LWN about what was going to happen in the 2.6.13 and 2.6.14 timeframe. Apparently, there is speculation Linus may merge in a lot of the more stable stuff from Andrew Morton's -mm patchset. If the updated RAID drivers are in that patchset, there is a good chance they will be in 2.6.13 or 2.6.14.


In the meantime, there are a lot of valuable, interesting and worthwhile projects that aren't in ANY of the patchsets at this point in time. I e-mailed a few of the maintainers about that, and it appears that they're aware of the problem but want general users to pressure the patch maintainers to publish patches on the kernel mailing list AND that said patches should conform to the kernel programming style.


So, again, if you want updated drivers for RAID, or additional features you know damn well exist and are out there, lobby the maintainers until they publish the stuff in a way the core kernel maintainers like.


There is simply far too much good stuff out there that is not being seen and not being used. It has got to the point where I will be reviving my own FOLK patch series, to start documenting the patches that live out on the fringes of kernelspace. If we want a better Linux, all we have to do is ask in a way that will be heard.

Re:2.6.13 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853190)

guess i don't feel so insane for ditching windows for os x. heh, i messed with this linux crap for a few years on the side, but you know what, it is still a joke, hate to say it.

Re:2.6.13 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853219)

Jesus - what a joke. It sounds like a full on mess. Custom CMS system written in 30 days. Patches being submitted that are ignored because the users don't use the proper kernel coding style. Seperate patches maintained outside of the kernel group that never get integrated in.

What a mess.

Don't Use It... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853056)

because lunix is for loosers!!!!1

Switch to Linux (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853059)


We were negotiating with the Pentagon.
We had a blue screen of death.
That was the last straw.
When you're holding the moon for ransom, you value stability in an application.
Linux gives us the power we need to crush those who oppose us.
It's compatible with our orbiting brain lasers.
I've got a beowolf cluster of atomic supermen.
I have more friends now.
Genetically engineered cybergoats.
Henchmen with bad teeth.
Georgous fembots with a penchant for evil.
I mean Linux runs on anything.
I'm all about open source.
It's just changed my love life.
You have to uh.. config it.
Uh.. and then you have to write some shell scripts.
Update your RPMs.
You have to partition your drives... and patch your kernel.
Compile your binaries.
Check your version dependencies... probably do that once or twice.
It's just so easy and so simple, I don't see why most people don't run Linux.
Thank god they don't, because they'd all be super villans, wouldn't they?
Huh uh ha!
I'm Steve, and I'm a super villian.

Re:Switch to Linux (4, Funny)

einhverfr (238914) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853312)

You have to uh.. config it.
Uh.. and then you have to write some shell scripts.
Update your RPMs.
You have to partition your drives... and patch your kernel.
Compile your binaries.
Check your version dependencies... probably do that once or twice.
It's just so easy and so simple, I don't see why most people don't run Linux.
Thank god they don't, because they'd all be super villans, wouldn't they?
Huh uh ha!
I'm Steve, and I'm a super villian.


So, Ballmer, What's up?

Re:Switch to Linux (1)

almostinsane (770051) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853347)

Too bad all of that is true. Linux could be usuable if you could just click on a setup file and be done with it. what a piece of....

The Linux kernel.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853072)

..is a remarkable achievment but it's wasted behind a terrible cloth headed mentality of it's users, appalling amateur quality bloated distros and shocking 30 year old technology to draw the windows

The time has come. Let the kernel be free of all the rotten rubbish clutter and crap from the past. Time for a new graphics layer. Time for ONE GUI. ONE WAY. ONE TRUTH.

Somewhat OT but... (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853075)

anyone else having trouble with saa7134 based tuners (I've got a compro videomate tv/fm). My image is way off center (towards the top right). I'm currently us Dscaler in Windows because of it (great program, but Windows... ug). The weird thing is, dvds played from my PS2 are centered, but games are way off center (and some like Street Fighter Alpha 3 won't play in tvtime but will in xawtv, go figure). No luck on the v4l list yet (noone there's seen the the problem), so I'm wondering if I should try patching up my kernel. tia.

Re:Somewhat OT but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853148)

Did you check your dependencies and recompile your kernel 3 times? I swear, you fucking noobs are so annoying.

human readable summary (2)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853103)

Changelogs are great, but does someone have a link to a list of major changes (short point list summary) from 2.6.11? I read the kerneltrap blurb, and that didn't satisfy me. thanks

REAL Men.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853155)

...use the odd numbered revisions...

More about 2.6.12's TPM support (1)

UnapprovedThought (814205) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853180)

There was no mention of TPM in the summary. Only a line about an i945G driver.

However, sourceforge lists a new TPM device driver at http://sourceforge.net/projects/tpmdd [sourceforge.net] . It is a set of patches which add TPM support to pre-2.6.12 kernels.

Also, a TPM-tools package using the trousers library is at http://sourceforge.net/projects/trousers [sourceforge.net] .

An article in heise [google.com] (translated link) titled "Linux kernel 2,6,12 with TPM support."

Moribund Linux (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853237)

I switch to OpenBSD

WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF ME?

I switch to OpenBSD

You're Fired (0, Flamebait)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853254)

What kind of ridiculous release management is that? Why doesn't the release manager "puzzle it out" once, so the rest of us can look at it, to tell whether it's worth bothering with? Their job is to ensure the release is packaged, not just brag to their friends that they're the glorious release manager.

Re:You're Fired (3, Interesting)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853360)

There is no release manager. A new kernel gets published when Linus decides it's time; in a way, that makes him the release manager, but it's not really managing as in "creating schedules, specifications, requirements, deadlines and all that". And I at least would rather see him do actual work instead of meeting arbitrary requirements imposed on him by the more marketing-oriented types.

That being said, Linus *has* given a reason why there's no full changelog this *one* time (it's reproduced right above in this very Slashdot discussion, for example); if anyone has issues with that, I assume they're more than welcome to create a full one and post that. If noone does... well, then the itch probably wasn't worth scratching after all.

So there. If it really matters to you, then go and create a full changelog. If it's not worth your time and effort, why do you complain that Linus feels the same way?

Breakage warning (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12853310)

Unfortunately this one isn't so good and breaks vmware again, and strangly postfix.

I will be ready for dual kernel machine with my (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853324)

Gentoo Sources. Then I can do an eval. I will try to post results to main Gentoo list, so everyone can see it there. I assume that because this doesn't even have a changlog, that only minor changes have been made, although I may be dead wrong. Please correct me if this and true and I will sit back and wait, wait, wait

Sincerfely, Rob

CPU-FREQ changes (2, Informative)

glMatrixMode (631669) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853363)

Skimming through the changelogs (link in story), I found many interesting CPUFreq changes, like :

* New governor 'Conservative' based on 'ondemand', except that it increases cpu freq step-by-step, instead of switching directly to the highest freq. This should improve battery time and address latency problems on amd64 systems.
* Improved support for PPC32 and ARM
* Support for dual-core opterons

Who gives a fuck? (-1, Flamebait)

RaeF (120232) | more than 9 years ago | (#12853379)

I'm not going to take the time to read the changelog, because I'm sure it says the same shit that it has said for years. Linux is great and all, hell, I use it all the time. But you gives a fuck that a minor number revision has come out? And if you have been sitting here, waiting for this posting on /. so that you can get your rocks off, then you need a life. Hell, I need a life since I have nothing better to do than this shit. Mod me down. Fuck, just delete this altogether.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...