Feeds

back to article Linux 3.11 to be known as 'Linux for Workgroups'

The first release candidate of version 3.11 of the Linux kernel has arrived, and to commemorate the occasion, Linux creator Linus Torvalds has given the kernel a new codename and a new, Microsoft-inspired boot logo to match. As of Sunday, Linux kernel 3.11 is officially named "Linux for Workgroups," borrowing the moniker …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge

Ah, the memories.

Good old Win 3.11..

7
1
Silver badge

It still wants its shrubbery.

3
0
Silver badge

Ah, the memories

Good old Eadon. I wonder what he'd say?

2
1
Anonymous Coward

The Linux bloat continues unabated...

4
5
Anonymous Coward

It is a bit of a monolithic monstrosity. I used to roll my own kernels once, but when it takes about half an hour or more to go through the configuration screens you do think it is time for a change.

0
4
Anonymous Coward

Its so nice

Not to need tonnes of driver disks. I will have to have a clear out soon of all my old driver disks for various devices I dont have. I still have some floppies with windows drivers for the network port. The funny thing is they worked for the OEM of windows XP as it didnt auto configure the common port.

0
0
Trollface

Re: Ah, the memories

Eadon... yes, where is he. It strikes me this forum's relationship with Eadon is a bit like Tom & Jerry, they fight like... um... cat and mouse, but miss each other terribly when they are apart. Hate him when he's here, grumble when he's gone!

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Ah, the memories

More Itchy and Scratchy I always thought.....

They fight, they fight,

They fight, they fight, they fight.

Fight fight fight, fight fight fight

The Eadon and Register shooooooooow !!!

0
0
Joke

Re: Ah, the memories

Someone's got to do it...

EPIC EADON NO SHOW FAIL

3
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Re: He was banned...

Oh thanks. I wondered...

0
0
Silver badge
Joke

So I suppose...

This means it won't come with a start menu but merely several groups of icons?

How disappointing ;-)

2
0
Silver badge

Re: So I suppose...

Start buttons are essential though, right? Any OS that doesn't have is doomed, right?

No? I heard it here...

3
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: So I suppose...

The start menu was a quantum leap in usability on the Windows desktop. That was 1995, what was the Mac OS like back then? or Linux even? I don't think Linux was really becoming usable until a couple of years after that. That was still the days of the LILO bootloader with all its quirks.

2
1

@AC Re: So I suppose...

"The start menu was a quantum leap in usability on the Windows desktop. That was 1995, what was the Mac OS like back then? or Linux even? I don't think Linux was really becoming usable until a couple of years after that. That was still the days of the LILO bootloader with all its quirks."

It was fine in '95 - the 2.x series kernels came out the following year but even the 0.96/8 ones were alright up to a point.. driver support for cheap consumer tat was still more miss than hit, but X windows had been ported a couple of years prior and the (GNU) compiler chain was useful and (more importantly for me at the time) rather cheaper than the Microsoft C compiler (which they'd bought from someone, forget who, pretty good it was too).

I mainly used it for interfacing with the University network, some dev work and as a front end onto the SGI Onyx in another room that had research data and analysis tools.

Linux wasn't as consumer friendly as OS/2, Windows etc back then, but for technical work - especially on machines with a more-workstation-than-whitebox bent - it was alright and a very compelling software development platform. Crashes - yes, lock-ups - yes, mostly Duplo-level window/desktop managers - yes.... but fine for all that, and they were all criticisms I could level at my Windows box. Windows '95 looked OK (IMO) when it came out, but everything before looked and ran like cheap crap compared with the mainline OSes we used, e.g. Solaris, Irix, HP-UX and most of them couldn't even connect to a network after a standard install.

One thing I didn't miss was playing the diskette shuffling game to keep the AAA set to hand whilst trying to load the rest of the OS onto the other ones - anyone who installed Linux around then without and infinite number of floppies will probably remember something similar.....

5
0

Re: @AC So I suppose...

"Windows '95 looked OK (IMO) when it came out, but everything before looked and ran like cheap crap compared with the mainline OSes we used, e.g. Solaris, Irix, HP-UX and most of them couldn't even connect to a network after a standard install."

That sounds weird on re-read - what I meant by that was that most of the versions of Windows couldn't connect - not the other OSes.

1
0
Bronze badge

usability on the Windows desktop. That was 1995,

Yes, it did bring it into second place.

Ironically, Windows 95 was far more similar to RISC OS, than the Windows 3.x machines that replaced it in the early 90s. (Meaning many school leavers faced with windows 95 had a much steeper learning curve, than they would have had)

Shame they never fixed the input focus system though.

5
0
Bronze badge

Re: So I suppose...

My recollection is that most Linux software was still command-line stuff. Yes, there was X-windows, with the free window manager (I forget its name) from MIT. Its main role seemed to be to run lots of terminal apps simultaneously. As actual X-apps one had:

- basic clock

- the Dali clock, with graphically changing characters and colours. Very popular, I miss it.

- xv, an impressive image editor for its time.

- and

- er

- that's about it.

Star Office was not widely known until Sun bought them and promoted it; and it was not free as in priceless. There was Latex (terminal based coded markup), still hard to beat for mathematical documents. There were terminal editors: Vi, more or less usable, and Emacs (you loved it or hated it).

Yes, things are much better now, despite the near-death experiences of KDE4, Gnome3, and Ubuntu.

1
0
Silver badge

Re: @AC So I suppose...

"That sounds weird on re-read - what I meant by that was that most of the versions of Windows couldn't connect - not the other OSes."

I worked once for a MS partner out On The Bleeding Edge and although I found the user experience of Windows 95 innovative you are bang on about the lower level issues for the poor buggers in the set-up and install trenches.

According to our installation and support guys we had problems mainly because firms would buy from "you spec it, we deliver it" PC-by-mail operations (once upon a time these were a lot more common than they are now) and a delivery of "identical" PCs would have so many variations in NICs, video cards and gosh knows what else that the driver configuration was a nightmare suck-it-and-see process.

And let's not talk about the IRQ conflict hell. Swap out a sound card and end up working all day to get everything else back on line (maybe by buying a different sound card than the one you were trying to install).

Ah, them were the days. The days I'm glad we're well shot of now.

1
0
DJO
Bronze badge
Boffin

Re: So I suppose...

The start menu was a quantum leap in usability on the Windows desktop.

This always bugs me, a "quantum leap" is an electron moving from one shell to the next shell and is the smallest amount of change possible in a system. So rather than meaning a massive change it really means a itsy bitty tiny change at or beyond the limit of measurement.

But there again that might be exactly what the poster meant.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: So I suppose...

"This means it won't come with a start menu but merely several groups of icons?"

I always thought the Program Manager interface was logical and usable enough - and now I have more or less the same thing on my Android phone with grouped icons on Nova Launcher.

0
0

Re: So I suppose...

Dali clock still lives, along with xscreensaver (which I still run), both from the same guy, who used to code for netscape (remember the days ) .

xv wasnt really an editor, and other than viewnior, not many image programs come close to it's ease of use when it come to putting an image on the screen as fast as possible, with as little unnecesary junk as possible.

0
0

WFW 3.11

Hey, I still have the floppies!

But no floppy drive :(

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: WFW 3.11

I'm sure your not the only one... I've still got mine too!

If Wikipedia ever stops working I've got my Encarta 95 CD Rom as well.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: floppy

If you've got a 3.5" floppy I'd keep that info to yourself and not announce it to the world

2
0
Coat

Re: WFW 3.11

They make excellent drink coasters...

0
0
Pint

Re: WFW 3.11

Especially if you get the neon ones.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: WFW 3.11

Hah, i still *use* a floppy disc. Our denford milling machine works just fine in windows 7 but the software had a licence floppy to unlock it! I have a usb floppy drive that i can wander about with....

0
0
Headmaster

WFWG TCP/IP?

If I remember correctly WFWG didn't actually ship with a TCP/IP stack, it was meant to but it wasn't ready in time for media production so everyone had to download tcp32b.exe from a BBS.

6
0

Re: WFWG TCP/IP?

We had Trumpet installed at our workplace, the general feeling was that it was miles better than the MS offering.

The thought of downloading off a BBS, I'd say "Good Old Days", except they weren't, give me the web any day

4
0

Re: WFWG TCP/IP?

oh Trumpet twice as fast and doubly stable.

4
0
Facepalm

Re: WFWG TCP/IP?

Microsoft TCP/IP supported Ethernet, I had to use Trumpet Winsock for using my modem with SLIP (predecessor of PPP). Trumpet was absolutely unstable. I switched to Linux soon after.

0
0
Windows

I wonder how long until MS sues

As noted

3
2
JDX
Gold badge

Re: I wonder how long until MS sues

Yeah, it's cute but probably illegal - wonder if MS will sue and give Torvalds more ammunition, or find a way to play cool.

I know which I'd bet.

0
7

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: I wonder how long until MS sues

Probably not illegal. It would have to be a trademark, I don't think they could have got one back then before things got insane, and it's a long dead product so it would be hard to show anyone getting confused.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: I wonder how long until MS sues

"Something tells me they won't give a shit."

Quite the reverse, they will take it as a compliment, "Oh look, Linus admits they've just caught up with WFW 3.11".

Redmond doesn't do irony. For evidence, see every communication coming out of Microsoft, ever. They have more self belief than Richard Dawkins, or a whole nightclub full of rappers.

5
0

Re: I wonder how long until MS sues

Did anyone else read that as "a whole nightclub full of crappers"?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Did anyone else read that as "a whole nightclub full of crappers"?

Sadly, though perhaps more appropriately, I got "a whole nightclub full of rapists."

Where's Dr. Freud when you need him?

0
0
Silver badge

Most notably, AMD has contributed more than 150 patches that improve support for Radeon graphics cards, including support for new hardware and for dynamic power management in the open source driver.

Can't wait for this! Nice to see AMD continuing to improve their Linux support after the release of Steam on the platform. The cards are still woefully underpowered when running under Linux, compared to Windows.

5
1
Anonymous Coward

"The cards are still woefully underpowered when running under Linux, compared to Windows."

That's more a result of the unstructured architecture of Linux compared to Microsoft's optimised model. I wouldn't expect to see that fixed any time soon.

1
8
Anonymous Coward

@Greg J Preece

"Can't wait for this! Nice to see AMD continuing to improve their Linux support after the release of Steam on the platform. The cards are still woefully underpowered when running under Linux, compared to Windows."

About time AMD and Nvidia put some leg work into getting their cards working. I used to hate steam for putting some annoying popup malware on my system to play games, but after seeing the effort they are making to port games and how they are pushing the graphics card manufacturers to improve I have gained a lot of respect for them.

I particularly like that they managed to get faster graphics on linux than on windows as it forced windows to improve their directX. Hopefully this will continue and benefit all of us who use the technologies.

5
0
Stop

"That's more a result of the unstructured architecture of Linux compared to Microsoft's optimised model. I wouldn't expect to see that fixed any time soon."

And how do you explain L4D2 running faster through DirectX wrapper to OpenGL on proprietary nVidia drivers than on Windows?

Just stop this nonsense.

Radeon drivers are slow because they are Alpha quality software, as in not feature complete and far from fully optimised.

5
0

"The cards are still woefully underpowered when running under Linux, compared to Windows."

That's more a result of the unstructured architecture of Linux compared to Microsoft's optimised model. I wouldn't expect to see that fixed any time soon.

I'm not sure what you mean about the architecture... certainly the point at which the images are rendered on the screen has more routes to it on Linux, what with different compositors etc, than Windows which is a single target - but that's not to mean that you can't try and optimize the performance on Linux for each, just that's it's potentially a bigger, more costly, job. That touches on one of the main reason for differences - economics.

Where there is a large shared code base, such as openGL, the binary drivers from AMD and nVidia tend to run about the same speed on Linux - and certainly for GL work that speed is on a par with the performance on Windows (some GL benchmarks Windows is faster, some Linux + binary driver is faster). For a lot of businesses, GL performance is what matters - not directX etc, the situation is different, by default, for consumer PC OSes which are still dominated by Windows. In the latter case, the performance on Windows is still generally much higher than on Linux - and the chance to optimize the performance of a Microsoft protocol on a Microsoft platform is enough to probably keep it ahead, or at least on par, for the foreseeable future.

That said, it is not always the case - one of the more notable exceptions recently(ish) is with Steam and Left 4 Dead 2. The following quote from one of their dev teams seems to contradict the idea that a confusion of architectures on Linux is the reason for some performances differences

".. - the company squeezed 270.6 FPS (Frames Per Second) from the Windows 7 Service Pack 1 64-bit and a whopping 315 FPS on Ubuntu 12.04 32-bit. This translates into a 16.7% increase in performance, or a 14.3% decrease in the time taken to render frames.

According to Valve, when the company started the experiment they struggled to get 6 FPS on Linux.

That the Linux version runs faster than the Windows version (270.6) seems a little counter-intuitive," writes the Valve Linux team, "given the greater amount of time we have spent on the Windows version. However, it does speak to the underlying efficiency of the kernel and OpenGL".

3
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @Greg J Preece

About time AMD and Nvidia put some leg work into getting their cards working.

What precise features are you missing from nvidia drivers, apart from the ability to read their source code?

More to the point, what features have you missed from nvidia drivers for the past 5 years, during which time every single nvidia graphics card going back to the geforce 2 has been fully supported on linux, BSD and solaris.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

"And how do you explain L4D2 running faster through DirectX wrapper to OpenGL on proprietary nVidia drivers than on Windows?"

It was specifically being optimised for Linux.

If you look at real world graphics benchmarks that are the same on both platforms, Windows 8 is substantially faster than the latest Ubuntu, etc.

0
6
Anonymous Coward

It speaks volumes for the fact that they were not running the same code base on each platform.

In real world tests of the same Open GL benchmarks on each platform, Windows is almost always faster: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel_windows8_ubuntu&num=1

0
5
Anonymous Coward

@Tom 38

"What precise features are you missing from nvidia drivers, apart from the ability to read their source code?

More to the point, what features have you missed from nvidia drivers for the past 5 years, during which time every single nvidia graphics card going back to the geforce 2 has been fully supported on linux, BSD and solaris."

Unfortunately stability. I dont blame linux as it runs fine on most of my machines but the nvidia drivers have their rather large issues. I do hope it clears up soon because I like my linux installs and it does seem more stable on mint15 but still it occasionally freezes my screen and I have to ctrl alt backspace. I have played TF2 on linux and I was plenty impressed but on the desktop I still have odd issues depending on which driver I choose (noveu, Nvidia stable, Nvidia experimental I believe they are).

I do need the Nvidia ones to run TF2 and the stable one has the best stability on my system but I still get some issues when using the system normally. I will point out that windows went through an odd phase of crashing and restoring the Nvidia driver some time ago but it seemed to clear up after some updates from Nvidia.

2
0

"In real world tests of the same Open GL benchmarks on each platform, Windows is almost always faster"

No it's not - the particular case of the Intel driver was that the Linux performance was much better than the Windows one for a while, then the Window driver got some serious tweaking by Intel and is now much better in turn. Have a look at the GL benchmarks for the AMD and nVidia drivers, not just the Intel one, on Phoronix for more.

3
0
Silver badge

That's more a result of the unstructured architecture of Linux compared to Microsoft's optimised model. I wouldn't expect to see that fixed any time soon.

Utter, utter nonsense. Valve's initial port of L4D2 ran faster on Linux by quite a way. Some of the original Eyefinity multi-monitor demos were running on Linux, apparently. When the software running on it is properly optimised (which is what AMD are doing), Linux is by no means slower than Windows.

Please go and read up on Linux graphics capabilities so you have the slightest notion what you're talking about.

3
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.