The faster version 2.0 of the Universal Serial Bus connection technology, the center of some controversy with Windows, has been incorporated into the latest test version of Linux. Linus Torvalds, founder and leader of the Linux operating-system project, released version 2.5.2 of the “kernel,” or core software, Monday, including initial support for USB 2.0. Linux may have lost its allure as a get-rich-quick scheme for would-be entrepreneurs, but the largely volunteer programming community that advances the core software is still functioning.” Read the rest of the story at C|Net News.com. The unstable kernel 2.5.x also includes the new VM, scheduler and we hope to see the preemptible and XFS patches rolling in that source tree. In the USB 2 matter, Windows2k/XP’s USB 2 stack is also not ready yet, but it has already leaked on the web.
USB 2 Arrives in Linux’s Unstable 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
Linux may have lost its allure as a get-rich-quick scheme for would-be entrepreneurs, but the largely volunteer programming community that advances the core software is still functioning.
that comment right there makes Linux Seem like it has lost and “eveyone is leaving to lick their wounds, but a determened few are bravely giving their time to continue this project in the face of defeat!!!”
clueless fools all of em.
that comment right there makes Linux Seem like it has lost and “eveyone is leaving to lick their wounds, but a determened few are bravely giving their time to continue this project in the face of defeat!!!”
clueless fools all of em.
—————
well, (cnet) tech journalism (use the term loosely) tends to attract the lowest common denominator – like any business that targets the masses. Not surprising it’s worded like that; guess who pays for their ads? Nuff said.
I think the link is wrong, it points to kernel 2.5.0 image, I didnt look if it was wrong in the original article though!
When discussing this it should be borne in mind that both the Linux and Windows versions are both unstable, but I would expect the Windows version to be released first, after all how long does it take for a Linux kernel to be completed…2 years?
Personally I’m looking forward to a Linux with the new VM/Scheduler/XFS/pre-empt etc to give a truly impressive Media desktop style-os like our beloved BeOS..who knows, it might happen yet. It does need to happen, Linux feels like dragging around rocks most of the time.
Can any1 please explain why you put USB support in the kernel? Sounds very stupid to me. Can’t this be an external module or something?
Can any1 please explain why you put USB support in the kernel? Sounds very stupid to me.
First explain why you think it’s stupid. I mean, I’m almost certain you say it’s stupid because you heard someone else say it’s stupid i.e. you are without a clue! … or something
Thank you very much for your very insightful reply! (not)
I think it’s stupid because:
– the kernel becomes larger -> more chances of bugs, instability etc.
– harder to develop the USB module independentantly of other stuff in the kernel
– you have to sync kernel releases with releases of the USB interface
But as I understand this is the way the Linux kernel is designed, put everything in it.
Linux not even able to boot with my current laptop, always need to use nousb,
and you got to be kidding talking about usb2 support.
What’s a nousb?
Regardless, linux runs fine on my (relatively modern) thinkpad. With USB. With full support of all sorts of hardware nastiness I need for work I’m doing such as using usb-serial converters and infrared.
And, the fact that Phazer thinks USB shouldn’t be in the kernel shows some sort of fundamental misunderstandings. First, it’s *hardware*. It needs to be in the kernel — even if it’s just a framework mechanism for other drivers. Second, while I haven’t downloaded 2.5.2 (I’m not a bleeding edge kind of guy, I like my kernels stable and long living) I imagine the support can be compiled as a module.
The fact is, it *can’t* exists in user space. And it won’t for winxp, and if apple chooses to support it it wouldn’t exist in user space in OSX either. Accept it. And if you don’t like it, don’t choose to compile it when you configure your kernel.
Shamyl Zakariya
First, it’s *hardware*. It needs to be in the kernel… The fact is, it *can’t* exists in user space.
I think Phazer knows that USB support can’t exist at Ring 3. S/He was just pointing out that it might make the Kernel (e.g. VMM, I/O, Scheduling) more stable if only the heart of the computer were inside. For instance, why burden users with the bloat of a USB supporting kernel if they have an old machine with no USB?
Also, Phazer is 100% on target in Her/is suggestion that a larger Kernel has more propensity for containing bugs.
I mean really, if a rogue device takes down the USB subsystem, you can just start it back up. If however the rogue device takes down the Kernel, you’re pretty much up shit creek without a paddle!
1 the kernel can be built with modules…
you can recompile the kernel to not support USB if you like….the kernel is writen in such a way that not very many hardware systems need to be supported by another, it is very moduler.