Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 08:36 UTC, submitted by diegocg
Linux Linux 3.0 has been released. Technically, the release of version 3.0 of the Linux kernel shouldn't be too eventful, since the jump in version number doesn't actually signify any huge change or whatever; the only reason behind the bump to 3.0 is to come to saner version numbering. Still, man, it's like, totally version 3 of the Linux kernel.
Order by: Score:
Well, it all depend
by kragil on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 09:03 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

Sure there have been kernel releases with more enhancements, but if you care for Xen dom0 then this is totally worth the new major release.
Way faster BTRFS and netfilter rules is also very important for some people.

I always hated the 2.6.32.57-wtf version numbering so this is a great release.

And you can follow Linus' rants on G+ now, which is strange but fun.

Edit: And Happy Birthday, Linux. MS would also like to congratulate. http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Linux-receives-20th-birthday...

Edited 2011-07-22 09:13 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE: Well, it all depend
by Laurence on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 10:43 UTC in reply to "Well, it all depend"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


That's a weird video and doesn't feel like "Happy Birthday" message at all.
Though I don't know why I'm surprised by this.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Well, it all depend
by Soulbender on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 14:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Well, it all depend"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I thought it was kinda neat and fun and a lot friendlier than you'd expect, all things considered.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Well, it all depend
by vitae on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 20:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Well, it all depend"
vitae Member since:
2006-02-20

I think so too. Any peace overture is nice at this point, though this "What went wrong" nonsense could have used some more PR work ie. "Microsoft and Linux got off to a rocky start, but the past is the past, and the future is now, and we predict great things from this powerful alliance..." So on and so forth. At least they're not comparing Linux to the Matrix anymore.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Well, it all depend
by WereCatf on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 11:50 UTC in reply to "Well, it all depend"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

And you can follow Linus' rants on G+ now, which is strange but fun.


G+, or the fact that you can follow his rants? ;)

It's actually pretty neat, I added him to my Circles there, makes it easy to follow his antics ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Well, it all depend
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Well, it all depend"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Bah I can't join Google+ yet because OSNews uses Google Apps, so I don't have a Google Profile >:(.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Well, it all depend
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 17:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Well, it all depend"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

You can create a new gmail account and use that for google +. I'd send an invite.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Well, it all depend
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 17:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Well, it all depend"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I know, I already have an old regular Gmail account.

The problem is that I'd only get stuck, and would need to move to my real email address once Profiles IS added to Apps users. Kind of annoying.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Well, it all depend
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 20:06 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Well, it all depend"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I'm in a somewhat similar situation. It appears as if you can switch the google account that google + is associated. Not sure if that really works. I'm hesitant to try, but maybe I'll get bored this weekend and see if it works.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Well, it all depend
by Liquidator on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 19:04 UTC in reply to "Well, it all depend"
Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

This reminds me a conversation on a forum, someone interesting in trying Linux and asking where to download it. A geek responded www.kernel.org ;)
True story.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by OSbunny
by OSbunny on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 10:19 UTC
OSbunny
Member since:
2009-05-23

What's with the strange links?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by OSbunny
by aledujke on Mon 25th Jul 2011 14:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by OSbunny"
aledujke Member since:
2010-01-02

It seems Tom has been hooked on LoL recently

Which is strange since I could swear he said gaming is for consoles and not PC (lol is pc only game) ;)

leagueoflegends.com

Reply Score: 1

Still running 3.0.0-rc7+ here :-(
by No it isnt on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 10:46 UTC
No it isnt
Member since:
2005-11-14

I'm so yesterday.

Reply Score: 5

Like, totally cool and nifty, man.
by Drumhellar on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 11:00 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

Still, man, it's like, totally version 3 of the Linux kernel.


I know, right? Like, wow. Man. 3.0. Dude, that's like, wow, man. Cool.

Okay, serious question: If version numbers still meant what they used to [which they don't (I'm looking at you, Chrome, and now, Firefox)], which of the 2.6.xx kernels would/should have been the first 3.0? Any suggestions? Personally, with the rapid release schedules much software has today, I think version numbers are meaningless, but if you had to choose, which would you choose, and why?

For me, being most interested in the graphics stack, I'd say the wide-spread inclusion of KMS, as far as my recent memory goes, but I know I'm forgetting other milestones. What are other milestones that might have made a good 3.0 release?

Reply Score: 4

vaette Member since:
2008-08-09

The way things work you should compare the Linux version numbering to that of webkit, which is at version 534.20. webkit is then tested and tuned for a specific browser release, which gets a more "real" version number in the classical sense, with a more normal release procedure. The Linux kernel in itself is not a product and doesn't have very thorough release management, so it doesn't get normal version numbers. The distributions that commit to a certain version of the kernel and patch/test that one do however have normal release procedures.

Reply Score: 1

diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

"Still, man, it's like, totally version 3 of the Linux kernel.


I know, right? Like, wow. Man. 3.0. Dude, that's like, wow, man. Cool.

Okay, serious question: If version numbers still meant what they used to [which they don't (I'm looking at you, Chrome, and now, Firefox)], which of the 2.6.xx kernels would/should have been the first 3.0? Any suggestions? Personally, with the rapid release schedules much software has today, I think version numbers are meaningless, but if you had to choose, which would you choose, and why?

For me, being most interested in the graphics stack, I'd say the wide-spread inclusion of KMS, as far as my recent memory goes, but I know I'm forgetting other milestones. What are other milestones that might have made a good 3.0 release?
"

Removal of the BKL (Big Kernel Lock)?

Reply Score: 3

cmchittom Member since:
2011-03-18

Okay, serious question: If version numbers still meant what they used to [which they don't (I'm looking at you, Chrome, and now, Firefox)], which of the 2.6.xx kernels would/should have been the first 3.0?


I certainly don't mean to denigrate Linux, but I think in an ideal world you wouldn't know what version your kernel was at, anymore than people know without looking what version of WebKit or Gecko their browser is on.

Reply Score: 2

MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

I certainly don't mean to denigrate Linux, but I think in an ideal world you wouldn't know what version your kernel was at, anymore than people know without looking what version of WebKit or Gecko their browser is on.


Now, thats a great point!

Software that would "just work" really would be nice. I think thats sort of what Java meant to do when they started out, but look how far that got. Seems like .net does an pretty good job of handling different versions of stuff, but no offense to the Mono folks, I don't think .net will get any traction outside of MS land.

Reply Score: 2

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

I certainly don't mean to denigrate Linux, but I think in an ideal world you wouldn't know what version your kernel was at, anymore than people know without looking what version of WebKit or Gecko their browser is on.


And to a large degree, this is that ideal world. I have both Fedora and Ubuntu machines at home, and I have no real idea what kernel version either of them is running. Obviously it's going to be a recent version of 2.6.x, but beyond that I haven't a clue...

Reply Score: 2

Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

I like the FreeBSD numbering system, Release Version.Revision. Ideally the version number should indicate the baseline functions, and the revision indicates how those functions have changed in regards to bug fixes.

Decade.release.build makes more sense for the Linux kernel, and I think that's would be a reasonable system.

Reply Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I'm embracing the apostasy. They didn't just change the version meaning willy nilly. They moved to shorter release cycles so each version has less changes, making it theoretically easier to upgrade with less worry.

If anything these version number radicals are forcing us to actually investigate releases rather than assuming the company/org has done it for us by blessing it with a version number to indicate their confidence in it.

I have not so fond memories of being screwed over by point releases because I assumed it was a minor change. And it was, a minor change that went undetected until it was an obscenely obvious problem with devastating consequences. Its not a shame on them for choosing a version number, its a shame on me for not testing it sufficiently.

Reply Score: 2

H-Online
by Elv13 on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 12:32 UTC
Elv13
Member since:
2006-06-12

The H coverage, the best around, as usual

http://www.h-online.com/open/features/What-s-new-in-Linux-3-0-12795...

Read the in detail too.

Anyway, I think I will skip. BTRFS had a lot of "huh, umm, do we need this code? Let's drop it and see" kind of changes. I use it since I gave up on ZFS, so this make me a little worried. Distributions start to ship BTRFS by default, I hope it will help.

Edited 2011-07-22 12:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Btrfs
by panzi on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 12:51 UTC
panzi
Member since:
2006-01-22

The big question for me is: Does Btrfs finally have a fsck that can fix errors? If there isn't such a tool/feature I don't use the filesystem.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Btrfs
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 20:44 UTC in reply to "Btrfs"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

It doesn't. Its still understood to not be ready for prime time. The online fsck is probably big enough news that you'll hear about it. No idea when it will happen.There was an effort that looked promising at the beginning of the year, but they scrapped it for whatever design/performance reason. I'm guessing its not trivial.

But, I completely agree. I'm not playing with it until it has online fsck error fixing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Btrfs
by Lennie on Sat 23rd Jul 2011 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Btrfs"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

The last news I've seen yesterday* is that they have one, but they are doing extensive testing.

But btrfs will probably have 3 things:
- the one that was added in the Linux 3.0: scrubbing: it will check the checksums and data on the disk and try to fix any problems it can find. This is something which can run will the filesystem is in use I guess.

- seems someone posted a patch on the btrfs mailinglist recently to do online filesystem checks in the kernel. To check if the meta-data is still consistent.

- and the offline fsck already mentioned above.

* I can't seem to find it anymore though

Reply Score: 2

RE: Btrfs
by Elv13 on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 21:06 UTC in reply to "Btrfs"
Elv13 Member since:
2006-06-12

BTRFS is a COW File System. If it get in invalid state, it should be able to reverse itself and by itself to any previous valid state for the affected files.

If it work, I can't tell, it worked fine until now (I run integrity check against saved md5 checksum and file counter for unused directories). In theory, this kind of file system is much more resistant than classic file system like Ext or Apple HFS+.

Offline check can be nice, but they should be useless no mather how they work. It's the job for the online integrity checked.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Btrfs
by vivainio on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Btrfs"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

BTRFS is a COW File System. If it get in invalid state, it should be able to reverse itself and by itself to any previous valid state for the affected files.

If it work, I can't tell, it worked fine until now (I run integrity check against saved md5 checksum and file counter for unused directories).


It doesn't work.

My entire btrfs filesystem got corrupted the other day because of battery running out. Without fsck, there was no way to make it work again.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Btrfs
by Tuishimi on Sat 23rd Jul 2011 15:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Btrfs"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Oooo. Ouch!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Btrfs
by Delgarde on Sun 24th Jul 2011 21:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Btrfs"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

BTRFS is a COW File System. If it get in invalid state, it should be able to reverse itself and by itself to any previous valid state for the affected files.


Not quite. It supports COW snapshots, so you should (in theory) be able to fall back to a previous snapshot. But that doesn't help much if you're not using snapshots, and don't have anything to fall back to.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Btrfs
by Kebabbert on Sun 24th Jul 2011 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Btrfs"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

"BTRFS is a COW File System. If it get in invalid state, it should be able to reverse itself and by itself to any previous valid state for the affected files.


Not quite. It supports COW snapshots, so you should (in theory) be able to fall back to a previous snapshot. But that doesn't help much if you're not using snapshots, and don't have anything to fall back to.
"
ZFS does that, but ZFS does not rollback to the latest snapshot. Instead, ZFS rolls back to the latest change.

And BTRFS needing fsck? Why is that? As I have understood it, fsck on ordinary Linux filesystems need the filesystem to be offline while doing fsck. I heard about one big raid which took one week to fsck, when it was a data problem. It would be faster to recreate the raid from backup than waiting one week.

scrub in ZFS allows you to use the raid while controlling the data. There is no fsck in ZFS, only scrub. Why having scrub and fsck in BTRFS? Beats me.

Reply Score: 2

MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

There were not a lot of changes in the 2.6.. -> 3.0 jump, IRC, I think there were some big changes in the 2.0 -> 2.2 version,

So, historically, what do you suppose were the most significant changes / version jumps in Linux?

Reply Score: 2

fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

2.4 -> 2.6

Reply Score: 2

Comment by jonathane
by jonathane on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 14:38 UTC
jonathane
Member since:
2009-05-31

Linus's baby is a cyborg?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by jonathane
by fretinator on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 15:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by jonathane"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Technically he's an android.

p.s., Mac goes up to 11.0!!

Reply Score: 3

Move along please...
by tuaris on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 17:21 UTC
tuaris
Member since:
2007-08-05

Don't hold up traffic, nothing to see here. Same old same old.

Reply Score: 0

Slower
by jessesmith on Fri 22nd Jul 2011 22:35 UTC
jessesmith
Member since:
2010-03-11

I downloaded and compiled 3.0 and found it to be noticeably slower than the 2.6.32 kernel I normally run. And some things (graphics and boot time) are noticeably slower in 3.0 than 2.6.38.

Personally I'm not liking this trend, about every six months I grab a new kernel release and it seems each one has slightly worse performance than the one before it.

Anyone else noticed a performance change (increase or decrease)?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Slower
by Valhalla on Sat 23rd Jul 2011 00:28 UTC in reply to "Slower"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


Anyone else noticed a performance change (increase or decrease)?

Can't say I have, that said I haven't done any proper benchmarks. Boot time for me 'seems' to be faster these days but again I have no hard data to back that up with.

I did notice that with the upgrade from .37->.39 I did, my system launched using 13 megabytes less of ram than it did prior to the upgrade. Not much to shout about these days I know, but I was just shocked at the notion of a newer version of something using less memory, particularly given that my system is quite lean as it is.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Slower
by Alfman on Sat 23rd Jul 2011 02:05 UTC in reply to "Slower"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

jessesmith,

"Personally I'm not liking this trend, about every six months I grab a new kernel release and it seems each one has slightly worse performance than the one before it.

Anyone else noticed a performance change (increase or decrease)?"

I'm curious myself, can anyone else who's planning to install the new kernel do some before/after benchmarks?

Network/disk/fs/ram.

I would do it myself, but I was not planning on installing the new kernel until it's included in the distros.

I have noticed that my laptop in particular feels slower after every new ubuntu install, but I use a desktop pc for all the heavy work so I haven't had much reason to investigate.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Slower
by zima on Fri 29th Jul 2011 04:47 UTC in reply to "Slower"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

It's probably at least also (if not largely) because you expect and actively search for it; a placebo, basically (not anything "bad" ...on the contrary, a very normal, very human thing; our neural network, over the half a billion years of its evolution, didn't really encounter any selection pressures depending on accurate representation, over disjointed moments, of such minute subtleties of perception - but OTOH being focused on the stimuli of the moment to the point of over-sensitiveness, was certainly adaptive)

Hm, I guess setting up an ABX test (say, some script essentially randomizing kernel version used) should be relatively trivial.

Edited 2011-07-29 04:58 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by static666
by static666 on Sat 23rd Jul 2011 09:42 UTC
static666
Member since:
2006-06-09

So, the real major feature of 3.0 is in fact a build system that can cope with this new numbering scheme. ;)

Is there really anything that can be done in kernel worth a major 3.0.0 version number as per old numbering rules? Looks exactly like Solaris dropping 2.7 for 7.

Still I kinda hoped Linus would use that opportunity to introduce something revolutionary he might have been picking at in his basement, some kind of a skunk works project.

Now Linux 3 is going to make every headline but it is sad there is nothing to showcase. Another missed opportunity for Linux on the desktop publicity wise? ;)

Edited 2011-07-23 09:56 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by static666
by smitty on Sat 23rd Jul 2011 11:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by static666"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

Is there really anything that can be done in kernel worth a major 3.0.0 version number as per old numbering rules?

If you go by the old rules, nothing short of a complete rewrite would be worthy of moving to 3.0. Maybe changing to a microkernel design, or something like that.

Anything short of that would just be grounds for a 2.8.x series.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by static666
by Delgarde on Sun 24th Jul 2011 21:58 UTC in reply to "Comment by static666"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Looks exactly like Solaris dropping 2.7 for 7.


That's exactly what it is. Technically, it's just another release in the 2.6 series, but Linux and co figured that with the patch version getting to 40, it was time to do something different.

Reply Score: 2