Linus Torvalds has released his final 2.6.0-test kernel, calling it the “Beaver In Detox”. Following this release Linus says that 2.6 development will be lead by Andrew Morton. The kernel’s name refers in jest to the previous release, which Linus had named “Stoned Beaver”. It contains a fix for the aic7xxx driver, proper error handling in do_fork(), some firewire fixes, and correction of a few skbuff leakage points. Download it from a kernel.org mirror.
Linux 2.6.0-test11 “Beaver In Detox” Kernel
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This means we can hope to see 2.6.0 by december? I can’t wait, seems then I’ll dual boot my ibook. Hope this process speeds up, maybe by the begining of dec, we can it? doubt it though, but would bhe cool.
I love kernel names! 🙂
Will the issue with preemption be solved in 2.6.0 final?
I’d say they have a hot potato by their hands. They have perked up everybody, and people expect 2.6 to be out anytime now. And yet, they can’t seem to fix a critical bug.
I’ve been using test10-bk2 all day, with preemptive kernel turned on, and have had zero problems. What are you talking about specifically?
http://kerneltrap.org/node/view/1679
about the preemtive problem that arise with the port to 2.4 and that kernel 2.6 also have.
That is why Marcelo cut out away the port from 2.4.23, and Linus told that was unstable in 2.6.0-test10 in the release mail.
” And yet, they can’t seem to fix a critical bug.”
they can but need time to solve it. have u ever read the announcement made by Linus explaining the problem ?
Hi,
I cannot compile the mousedev module anymore, since it is not selectable in ‘make menuconfig’
The .config file shows me a few lines like this:
CONFIG_INPUT_MOUSEDEV=y
CONFIG_INPUT_MOUSEDEV_PSAUX=y
CONFIG_INPUT_MOUSEDEV_SCREEN_X=1024
CONFIG_INPUT_MOUSEDEV_SCREEN_Y=768
but a suitable mouse module is not compiled.
find /lib/modules/linux-2.4.6-test10 | grep -i mouse
returns no results.
What can I do ?? Are there any dependecies, which could not be fullfilled ??
I am using redhat 9 linux
greets
boris
Its now called mousedev, try modprobe mousedev
Also you probably need to upgrade your initscripts from arjanv’s page http://people.redhat.com/arjanv I think
Duh – I really should get to bed
The .config file shows me a few lines like this:
CONFIG_INPUT_MOUSEDEV=y
CONFIG_INPUT_MOUSEDEV_PSAUX=y
CONFIG_INPUT_MOUSEDEV_SCREEN_X=1024
CONFIG_INPUT_MOUSEDEV_SCREEN_Y=768
You have the mouse stuff compiled in – not as modules
Is your mouse still not working?
I’d say they have a hot potato by their hands. They have perked up everybody, and people expect 2.6 to be out anytime now. And yet, they can’t seem to fix a critical bug.
First, it’s not critical. It’s an awaited but not necessary feature. Second, the developers are human. Don’t expect them to find a solution in minutes. They also have to test it. Third, I suppose you’re laughing because you can do better… right? *cough*
And yet, they can’t seem to fix a critical bug.
Kernel hasn’t been released yet, last I heard…it seems it’s a very difficult bug to reproduce, which means that a) it takes some time to fix and b) it’s not that critical, because it’s only affecting a small number of systems.
Seriously, what do you get out of constantly posting anti-Linux messages? It really sounds like you have an ax to grind. If it’s some kind of payback for the anti-Windows trolls, well, aren’t you then as lame as they are?
2.6.0 is turning out to be an awesome piece of work. Congratulations goes to all those involved…
That Linus does not keep the pre-emptible kernel bug a secret – that’s way more that any company would done. Wasn’t it SUN that actually paid some reporters of bugs in their software to keep quiet? By coming forward I suppose it can also be assumed that that is the only serious known bug remaining. If he instead had hidden it then Linux could get the reputation of being flaky – the most important feature of what Linux is not – and the maintainers a reputation of not knowing what they are doing. I’ve been running with pre-emptible kernel enabled and have not seen the bug yet.
I’ve got a Pentium 4 system running with Preempt enabled, the box freezes for no apparent reason after 23~25 days of uptime. Done that twice already (not enough days gone by to count the 3rd one
)
I can only hope they get it fixed soon. Good luck tracing that one!
Linus said that Preempt wasn’t broken itself but it something deeper, I’m sure its a top priority, and will get fixed before or soon after it gets released.
I haven’t had time to look in a while, but is there still no kernel debugger?
I just commented on an existing severe problem, highlighted that it’s not solved, and half the posts have nothing better to do than attacking me? Nothing better to say? I wouuld understand if it was a made-up problem, but no, it’s real.
It it now forbidden to point out a severe problem with the Linux kernel? Look, it’s not holy.
In fact, rather than attacking me, why don’t you, or at least a tiny fraction of you, discuss the problem in rational terms.
I am sure what most people object to is the way you choose your wording. Like the subject: “hah, still no solution to the preempt problem!”
If you want to discuss the problem in rational terms, why do you start out by mocking the kernel developers?
Or are you just a simpleton with poor language skills which is misunderstood?
There are plenty of kernel debuggers.
You can even do source level debugging with GDB on UML a kernel (I guess not so helpful for drivers, but wonderful for the network stack amongst other things).
But there are plenty of other debugging options aswell (and have been for some time).
If this is in reference to the problem being discussed, then a debugger doesn’t help much with these sort of corruption problems, as there is no way to start debugging when the corruption occurs – only when the effects of the corruption are felt.
it’s nothing new that special features can be configured in the linux kernel with that well known EXPERIMENTAL behind it.
As Linus pointed out that there are problems, everyone himself can decide to turn it on or NOT.
Where’s the “severe problem” on this issue now?
btw works good for me.
It wasn’t particularly offensive. I use the same style with most bugs.
But it’s only in case of Linux that even the slightest deviation from a formatted, computer-generated language is so frown upon. What is so special about the Linux community, that the members can’t stand one bit of criticism, that the criticism must be all pampered with words like: “I am sorry, I don’t mean to be rude but I think there is maybe a problem there with xxxxx in the Linux kernel. Maybe it’s not a major issue, and I apollogize if this sounds like I am being rude, believe me, I am not. I am just trying to assess the existence of the xxxx problem, hoping that the kind-hearted Linux developers might want to have a look at it, really nothing else than that. Otherwise Linux version YYY is really fantastic and I thank heavens for it’s existence, and it really works fantastic on all my computers usually, it’s just on this one where it ran a bit longer. I think it’s not my hardware, because version AAA was OK on it for about 6 months, but if you insist it’s a hardware problem I will, of course, check any complaints you might have about my setup. Again, sorry if I have hurt anyone’s feelings, I am just trying to help here.”
Would that kind of language make my comment more palatable to the Linux community? Why do I have to baby-sit the Linux community like that? Other software projects are a million times more resiliant and just concentrate on the facts. With Linux, no way, you gotta immediately scorn the poster with God-given indignation. I mean, it’s Linux, it’s not like one can just criticise it unpunished, right?
“What is so special about the Linux community, that the members can’t stand one bit of criticism, that the criticism must be all pampered with words like…”
Maybe the reason is the same incapability which causes you to think about the Linux community as a homogeneous whole and assume that all members are the same, which is (of course) not true. A deduction “Members I met can’t stand one bit of criticism” -> “The Linux community’s members can’t stand one bit of criticism” is plain wrong.
Oh, and offending people is not the way of intelligent critism. I don’t believe that you want to criticise in an intelligent way, it seems to me you only want to offend, which you made more than apparent.
Where did I offend anyone?
Mod down all of Mario’s posts, and all those replying to him.
Oh, c’mon! He did nothing wrong. Grow up!
It it now forbidden to point out a severe problem with the Linux kernel? Look, it’s not holy.
You didn’t point it out. You derided it for one of its failings. Several people pointed out the problem before you did, but they didn’t feel the need to do this in a provocative manner.
In fact, rather than attacking me, why don’t you, or at least a tiny fraction of you, discuss the problem in rational terms.
How did making a provocative statement like you did (insinuating that the kernel hackers were irresponsible or simply incompetent) help discuss the problem in rational terms? It was obviously an emotional comment from a known anti-Linux advocate trying to provoke a reaction from Linux proponents. In short, a troll.
I don’t know why, but mousedev and keybddev no longer exist as loadable modules. They are compiled in now. if your PS/2 mouse is not working, add modprobe psmouse to rc.local. For USB mice it is modprobe usbmouse, but hotplugging should take care of USB mice.
Please to everyone. Kernel 2.6 is no drop-in replacement! There is more to it than installing module-init-tools. Hardware detection designed for 2.4er kernels will not work in many cases. If you can’t manually map your devices to kernel modules and add the necessary lines to the boot-scripts, you likely will run into problems.
If you can’t see the provocative element in your post, then you must have very poor communication skills indeed. Compare your deriding tone with that of other posters talking about preemption in the last 2.6 kernel thread, and you’ll see.
First, there the “hah! look at the difficult situation they find themselves in” attitude which most people will find immature and mean.
Second, there’s the deliberate exaggeration of the nature of the problem, which is not widely spread and hard to reproduce.
Third, it brings nothing new to the discussion.
Fourth, it comes from someone who has an open and avowed anti-Linux bias.
Provoke people and they’ll respond. Is that so hard a concept to grasp?
While you may not see it, your tone is very confrontational.
If you had said “I wonder if they are making any progress on the pre-empt bug. If they can’t find that before release I don’t think I can trust the rest of the kernel.” or something like that I doubt it would have gotten your message across without seeming contemptuous of the developers.
Criticism is fine, derision is not. I don’t like comments that deride Window any more than I like comments that deride Linux BTW. Feel free to deride OS X though. (just kidding)
if u feel preemption that important why don’t u make the solution by yourself?
Do you realise that you are still insulting people who use Linux by calling them ‘zealots’…no, I don’t think you do; or you wouldn’t still be doing it?!:
Main Entry: zeal·ot
Pronunciation: ‘ze-l&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin zelotes, from Greek zElOtEs, from zElos
Date: 1537
1 capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century A.D. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine
2 : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan
Yes, I got this out of a dictionary, so what!
Michael Lauzon, Founder
The Quill Society
http://www.quillsociety.org/
[email protected]
Look, it’s not what you said, it’s how you said it. Yes, the preempt problem is still a problem. Yes, they are working on it. No, it doesn’t seem to be very critical given that it is very hard to reproduce.
When you type “hah” at the beginning of your comment, it sounds like you are laughing at or mocking the developers, as if they were either incompetent or not trying. Just use a little tact next time.
No wonder the SCO FUD machine has swung into such high gear. Just installed 2.6 and now I completely understand why SCO is so afraid. Microsoft should be VERY VERY afraid.
Several? Since when is 1 equal to several?
Well, there were at least two on the last two kernel threads (this one and the one from the day before).
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=5232&offset=15&rows=30#17…
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=5239#171247
Neither of these people took a confrontational tone in adressing this issue, even though the one from the first thread did consider it a serious issue.
I never said those words.
I never said you did. It’s pretty ironic that you complain that Linux users go “all up in arms” over your provocation when you’re very defensive yourself.
As I said, I did not say this is what you said, just that this is what I interpreted your attitude to mean. But perhaps I misinterpreted what you said, and that you weren’t deriding the kernel hackers.
So, really, what were you trying to say?
It was not deliberate, and it wasn’t an exageration, because I was convinced that the problem is bad. It affects system stability over periods of time of some weeks to dozens of days. If it’s not so bad, say so, explain why you think it’s not bad,
I believe it is an exaggeration, because a) you can use the kernel without the preempt configuration (which is what you’d do for a server that you want to leave on for extended periods of time in the first place) and b) the bug isn’t with preemption, but preemption seems to trigger it in specific systems. So it’s not critical because the kernel is still usable and the problem seemingly only affects a limited subset of system configurations.
but don’t attack me. I’m just the messenger (you know what they say, “don’t kill the messenger”).
No, you’re not the messenger, you’re a poster giving your opinion as a participant in the comments section. You chose to give it in a confrontational and provocative manner – and since it provoked strong reaction, it is ipso facto a provocative statement – and now are whining because people react.
The messenger would be the poster in the original thread who first brought the subject to the website reader’s attention.
As for widespread, I have no figures to back any position. Do you? I think nobody has, but it’s a fact that not many have been running test10 long enough for the problem to appear often.
I have been running test10 since it came out and I haven’t had any problems yet. Then again, it is a test kernel!! It’s normal for it to have bugs! Your reference to them having a “hot potato” in their hands is uncalled for – people expect test kernels to still have problems. What’s remarkable is that there are so few problems with it.
It brings the view that it’s an important problem.
Others had already brought this view, in a much less provocative manner.
You may disagree with me on this, as well, but still no reason to call me names, is it?
Have I called you names? No, I haven’t. Unlike you, I don’t feel the need to call others “idiots” or “morons” when I disagree with them.
And just let me tell you something: I was the ONLY one to post a link to the actual problem description, by Linus himself.
You did provide a link, but again that only served to defuse your criticism. The calm, matter-of-fact tone of Linux and others’ discussion on the subject served to show how your “hah! still no solution to the preempt problem[…]they got a hot potato by their hands” comments miss the mark.
Now just go on, have the nerve calling me names
Again, I won’t swoop down to your level.
I have tried to show that I wasn’t particularly provocative.
If people were provoked, then you were provocative. And they are not any thinner-skinned than you are, since you’ve spent as much time complaining that you were not provocative as they did complaining that you were.
As others have said, you have a very confrontational attitude, calling those who disagree with you “zealots” and criticizing the kernel hackers with a deriding tone. I think you should accept this and live with it rather than act all surprised that people react to your posts.
Why does it matter whom does it come from?
It affects your credibility because you do not appear objective. If you attack Linux every chance you get, it does affect how people will perceive your posts.
Maybe it hurts because I have been telling an unpleasant truth sometimes?
Don’t flatter yourself. A) it doesn’t hurt, it’s annoying, and B) it’s more tired FUD than unpleasant truth.
Attacking me and calling me names won’t make Linux one jota better.
Well, on this I totally agree. And that’s why I’m not attacking you or calling you names, but just stating that you made a provocative statement, criticism that IMHO was off the mark, that you shouldn’t be surprised if people react, and that complaining about it just sounds whiny.
Fighting the sheep mentality does not consist of screaming loudly about every tiny problem. It does not consist of misconstruing and misrepresenting facts; for instance, using language like “critical” and “severe” to describe a problem experienced by so few people that it cannot be isolated. (Please note that when applied to other platforms, these words usually mean “affecting many people in ways that will cause massive problems.”) And fighting the sheep mentality certainly doesn’t consist of mocking anyone.
You can think about yourself as a modern day Socrates if you like, but harping on everything and anything you can get your hands on, no matter how small, and being gloating and nasty while you do it, more resembles the behavior of a (particularly grumpy) sheep than anything else. Trolling isn’t an intellectually courageous activity that enlightens the masses; stop giving yourself so much credit.
So you Linux people are calling for non-mocking non-provocative technical critism. GOOD! I agree. Now, I hope the next time an article about Microsoft, Apple, or BSD comes up you take your own advice.
And to those saying it’s only a *part* of the Linux community acting childish? Well, those *rational* Linux users certainly don’t seem to be standing out and calling out the non-rational users much. I think the Linux community deserves the reputation it has.
And yes, I’m being provocative. I’m sick and tired of users critising Linux by firts apologising like this:
“Even though I use [other os] I do love Linux, but ….”
Really, mario is right when he said that the Linux community can’t take any critisism.
Don’t confuse criticism of Windows and criticism of Microsoft. Microsoft != Windows.
I have nothing against Windows. It’s an OS, a very popular one at that. Personally I feel it’s overrated, and that Linux offers a good free-as-in-speech alternative. Personally I prefer it, but that’s me. IMO, it is ready for quite a few desktops. I feel pretty much the same way about OS X and BSD (though the latter I don’t know too well).
Microsoft, now…I do have something against Microsoft, and I will freely criticize it. I will have harsh words for this convicted monopolist and the danger it represents for the IT industry. I will condemn its practice of consciously subverting standards as well as the way it abuses its monopoly to lock in customers with their software. And I’ll call out Microsoft shills when they’re Astroturfing, on this site or on others – because I believe that computing is too important to leave it to Microsoft.
Well, those *rational* Linux users certainly don’t seem to be standing out and calling out the non-rational users much.
Do *rational* windows users call out the non-rational ones? (Well, I guess sometimes they do: I’m also a Windows user and I do call out the anti-Linux trolls…)
There’s nothing wrong with constructive criticism. FUD, mockery and innuendo, on the other hand, will draw reactions. Deal with it – and stop whining that the “other camp” are whiners. That doesn’t sound very mature.
Really, reading your comment it seems that anti-Linux advocates and their supporters can’t take criticism of their own…Pot, kettle, etc.
well we linux people are like any other people different.
some tell FUD about microsoft some dont. guess wath this is also tue about the other groups BSD , windows, apple wathever.
and i must say that osnews have the strongest mix of em all.
i think i dont se anymore fud for one particular os than another
You are right-on. People wonder why Microsoft detractors can get so vehement. Its not just a matter of product quality. A lot of people dislike a company’s products, without disliking the company on a personal level. Microsoft, just like Enron or De Beers, is different. They aren’t a company — they are a band of criminals, pure and simple. They have no respect for competition, no respect for our laws, and no respect for our courts. Their behavior not only reflects badly on the company, like a bad product does, but on the very character of its leaders. If they do not respect our system of justice, and the delicate rules of our economy, there is no reason for us to respect them.
Wait, you say, Microsoft has changed! They’re starting to make good products, and take the competition seriously. Let me say this: even if Longhorn is the greatest OS on the planet, that still does not make up for what Microsoft has done. Not only have they not been punished for their past behavior, but they continue to engage in similar behavior! Our society is based on rules and principles. If you break these rules, or stray from these principles, than nothing else you do matters.
Right on the money with your post.
Now I’m looking forward to seeing Linux Distros with the 2.6 Kernel shipping with them. I think with that and the great file systems on offer Linux might be picking up some speed on the desktop front.
I agree almost 100%. Sometimes criticism of Microsoft and criticism of their products overlap — for instance, criticism of their corporate culture as regards their attitude toward security threats and how they are handled. This is simultaneously a criticism of their software.
But generally speaking, criticizing one doesn’t mean criticizing the other. I have huge problems with Microsoft as a corporation, but I try not to carry these feelings over to their products. Personally, I feel that the quality of Microsoft’s products (many of which I think are extremely well-designed, though I don’t put Windows in that category) is a much less important issue than the way they throw around their power and money. The quality of a set of tools is monumentally less important than abuse of corprate power and violation of laws.
No I say 12 step Beaver and he’s going to the NA meetings with the SCO execs
I like the more mature approach the Linux community takes towards FUD. While Windows FUDders are constantly changing their complaints, Linux users are very consistent with their complaints and insults. Such classics as “Dance, monkey boy, dance,” “BSOD every five minutes,” and “Micro$oft sux” will probably be around for as long as Linux. Windows (“windoze” lol) users often try to cloud the issue with actual facts or unresolved issues when spreading FUD, but fortunately most people can see right through this.
I looks like MS has for years engaged in monopolistic practices. Some of their reported behavior even seems to qualify under the criminal enterprise laws. But they have spread enough money around to buy their way out of their trouble. Unfortunately in the United States both or our political parties are up for sale to the highest bidder. The Democrats will do anything that Labor Unions, environmentalists (no matter how nutty) and Trial Lawyers tell them. The Repbublicans do anything that big corporations want. They seem to both have been bought off by the RIAA and MPAA. So I would expect Microsoft to continue using their desktop monopoly to engage in a host of illegal activities without consequences.
you know, insinuating that the kernel is inept cause of the pre-emption problem is a flawed statement.
first:
it’s not a big deal, hard to dupilicate and hundreds of 2.6 users <myself included> have yet to see the problem.
second:
would you ever hear MS release a statement saying: “we have a flaw in our OS”, no. instead you hear thing like “another worm was able to exploit the xxx subsystem, a problem microsoft has acknowledged but has yet to fix”.
it’s not uncommon for MS to release versions of it’s OS with known holes. it should be refreshing to see linus acknowledge this flaw. It’s just that mario has never seen accountiblitly from MS, so this is making him convulse.
I vote for “relapsed beaver” — AKA, the Robert Downey Jr. kernel!
…as a reference to The Naked Gun, of course! (Also ties in nicely with Thanksgiving and the Holidays…)
http://www.moviewavs.com/Movies/Naked_Gun.shtml
Not all crimes involve violence. White-collar crimes cost as much to society as do more “dramatic” ones.
I don’t know if I’d go as far as to say that MS is run by a band of criminals. It is, however, a predatory company that abuses its monopoly to satisfy its hunger. It represents a clear and present danger to the IT industry, and to society as a whole. As such, it should have been dealt with by the DOJ. Instead, the only recourse we now have (in North America, at least – MS still has quite a legal battle to fight in Europe) is to “vote with our dollars” by refusing to buy Microsoft (which entails running other OSes) and by advocating that other people follow suit.
Now, some people – I believe you are one of them – feel that it’s perfectly all right that a single company should dominate something as crucial as personal computing, and go out of their way to “defend” MS against any criticism of their monopoly (or quasi-monopoly, if you want to play on words). This really only makes sense if a) they are MS stockholders or b) are skilled in MS systems administration and thus fear having to adapt to a UNIX world…
As I’ve said, I’ve got nothing against Windows – but MS I do have something against. I believe this attitude is quite widespread among Linux and Windows users alike.
For the record, I was being a bit dramatic. I’m not putting MS on the same level of “criminal” as, say, the DC sniper. Rather, I was using the phrase to refer to someone who had committed a crime, even if it was white-collar.
As Archie Steel pointed out, white collar crime costs us a great deal. While the DC sniper took lives, which is obviously horrendous, large-scale white collar criminals destroy hundreds and sometimes thousands of careers and retirements. Monopolists put whole companies out of business, and that costs families their livelihoods, their homes, etc. And this doesn’t even take their effects on the stock market, confidence in the economy, etc. into account. I don’t know what “level” of crime you want to call that, but its significance and effects shouldn’t be underestimated.