Torvalds: Linux devs may 'cry into our lonely beers' at Christmas Linus Torvalds has let release candidate five for version 3.13 of the Linux kernel into the wild for some festive footling. The Linux Lord let the new release candidate loose in this post that declares “Nothing really exciting stands out” which is “just how I want it.” “It's the 'how did that ever even pass cursory testing' …
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
"The post also outlines his plan for at least three more release candidates in the 3.13 development process,"
You can't have 4 release candidates, that makes no sense, You either believe it's ready to be released, or it's not, if you think it still needs to be tweaked 3 more times, then it's not ready for release, surely?
Maybe I'm just lost in the world of reality?
You do know what an RC is in terms of testing?
It's effectively a stage past beta, where no new major code will be added (IE all the features you want are there), but existing code may be modified if further bugs are found.
If you fix a bug and that creates a regression elsewhere, then you fix that, and that's RC2. So on for RC3 etc.
You have as many RCs as you want till you're happy it's stable.
HTH.
I agree with the first commentator (upvoted). You shouldn't plan to have more than one RC, although you can have as many as you like.
According to wikipedia... "A release candidate (RC) is a beta version with potential to be a final product". If you are planning to have three of them, then numbers 1 & 2 can't be a potentially final product". I am not saying Wikipedia is gospel, but it's my understanding of the term and I would suggest the understanding of the first commentator. If nothing else, the name - "Release Candidate" - should give the game away.
Yes, that's snake oil merchants' strategy: "we'll have only one RC and we'll be perfect, honest". Meanwhile, responsible people in charge of a very complex project like the Linux kernel have a reasonnable roadmap based on history of bug finding and bugfix time. Remember that every bugfix has to be tested in the whole RC before it can be deemed safe; inevitably some bugfixes will create issues with other parts, and all this needs to be ironed out a couple times before it's stable enough to power ~80% of the world's computers. Planning a single RC would be an obvious lie, a bit like saying that your new car will cost you $30 in maintenance over it's entire life because that's the cost of the first oil change, and why would you plan for anything else, ever?
Yes you should. Back when HP was a real tech company I worked for a firm that had the good fortune to work with them on a product release. They had formulas for testing before release that predicted how many more bugs you would find based in a given testing period based on the number and severity of the bugs you found in the current iteration. So the first RC could go to release at some probability level, but you probably were going to go through more testing at the end of the cycle. If you didn't plan for those cycles you were a damn fool.
Still sub-1% penetration.
Graphics are poorly supported.
Sound barely works.
Batteries don't last due to poor energy efficiency.
Forget Optimus (graphics AND energy efficiency; double clusterfuck)
Touch-screen support is a joke.
Touchpads almost work.
All this failure from the largest open source project. No wonder Windows has no competition.
I wish. i just bought a Dell Inspiron for the mother-in-law's christmas (it's OK, she doesn't read ElReg). Apparently, just pressing "Do updates" after installing it managed to complete fuck up Windows 8 and it would not allow me to upgrade to 8.1 because the Windows Update and the Dell update had a bit of a fisticuffs resulting in me losing.
So, I scrubbed Windows 8 entirely, put on Fedora 20, it went on like a breeze. Out of the poster above's list the only problem was her cheap shitty lexmark printer that has no Linux driver (but there is also no Windows 8 driver either). Everything *just works*. Fedora recognises the Secureboot stuff and the KDE interface is usable and looks close enough to her old Windows XP system that the difference can be explained as an improvement. Windows 8 would have taken a LOT of support for her.
"I wish. i just bought a Dell Inspiron for the mother-in-law's christmas (it's OK, she doesn't read ElReg). Apparently, just pressing "Do updates" after installing it managed to complete fuck up Windows 8 and it would not allow me to upgrade to 8.1 because the Windows Update and the Dell update had a bit of a fisticuffs resulting in me losing."
Here, I will give you support like a Linux fanboi:
Did you remember to plug-in the CPU?
Have you confused it with a dead badger?
Clearly everything you have said is an edge case.
You are obviously lying. The OS is perfect.
HTH - Linux Fanboi Collective
"Denying reality one install at a time"
I forgot some:
SecureBoot - totally screwed on Linux. In fact, Linux might brick your PC if you try SecureBoot.
Hibernate/Sleep - like playing Russian roulette with your data
Multi-screen support? Just about, but still a decade or so behind Windows.
Wi-Fi? Complete crapshoot on whether or not your card works.
Printing? Garbage.
The fanboys will crow about freedom, but what good is that when you just shackle yourself with a system that doesn't work with your hardware and doesn't run your software? May as well pick up your free concrete overshoes and go for a swim. Same feeling.
> SecureBoot - totally screwed on Linux
Yeah, let's blame Linux for Microsofts attempt at locking in users by making it impossible to install alternative OS's.
Oh, you mean the big, nasty MS who state that you MUST be able to install keys etc on any Win 8 device?
Yeah, how totally evil of them.
Having Win RT locked-down is no different to your phone or tablet being locked; and yet the sun shines out Google's arse, doesn't it?
So not only are you factually incorrect, you're a hypocrite too.
> aving Win RT locked-down is no different to your phone or tablet being locked; and yet the sun shines out Google's arse, doesn't it? So not only are you factually incorrect, you're a hypocrite too.
The F are you on, fanboi?
Firstly, it's not just RT that's locked down. Secondly, where the hell did you get the impression that I applaud any attempts by Google to keep users from rooting or installing alternative OS's? Thirdly, where the hell did you get the idea that Google has made it impossible to root or install alternative OS's?
Well Mr AC, your lack of knowledge of the subject is quite astounding. I really think you should stop digging that big hole for yourself.
Can I ask when you last had any personal experience? Or why you think that Windows is overtaking Linux in the server room (it isn't btw, and I won't give references, because you didn't)
The one think I will say, is that this 'joke' of an OS powers more devices than all the other OS's put together. Android devices rely on Linux, as do vast numbers of embedded devices (TV's, routers, DVD players to name a miniscule subset). The Raspberry Pi runs Linux, as do a host of other small devices. So, can you please explain your nonsensical 'joke' comment, which by it's very nature does seem to give some indication of what a uninformed individual you actually seem to be.
A paid Microsoft shill perhaps?
Microsoft recognizes that GNU/Linux is making headway into the PC/Laptop segment and that home users are keeping older hardware running by using GNU/Linux, as am I.
My desktop, at work, runs Windows 7 while my laptop at home runs Debian XFCE. There is little or nothing that Windows does that GNU/Linux can't and at some point Corporations will understand that there really is no need to continue paying the Windows tax.
Breaking the lock in is a one-time expense and pain and the sooner broken the better and potentially safer the data.
"A paid Microsoft shill perhaps?"
Are you a paid Linux shill?
"Microsoft recognizes that GNU/Linux is making headway into the PC/Laptop"
Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! That is one of the funniest things I have read. Unless by "headway" to mean a "statistically insignificant" blip. Just wait for regression to the mean (and your mean is sub-1%; always has been).
"There is little or nothing that Windows does that GNU/Linux can't"
Run Photoshop, AutoCAD, Outlook, Word, Excel or many other vital industry applications.
"paying the Windows tax."
Oh, you mean support? I did not realise RedHat came with free support. Oh wait, it doesn't.
"Are you a paid Linux shill?"
How - exactly - can one be a paid Linux shill? Who would pay someone to be a Linux shill?
You, OTOH, have a very definable history of attacking Linux and defending Microsoft with zero variation. I've not been irked enough quite as yet to start poking around and seeing if you are, in fact, on the Microsoft (or Waggner Edstrom?) payroll, but I might consider making it a project for 2014. Your constant belligerence and unfounded attacks are backed by hyperbole even I find out-to-lunch, and I consider hyperbole to be a perfectly valid form of argumentation.
It's a fucking computer, dude. Not a religion. Every bit of hardware, software and operating system has it's good points and it's bad points., Why the fuck do you feel the need to "convert" people?
You're like a door to door religious douche waking me up at 7am to ask me if I've felt the tender touch of Jesus. People like you are the reason I answer the door in the nude. You aren't okay. Not if you're pushing Jesus and not if you're pushing your personal bit of technological brand tribalism.
Get off my goddamned lawn.
"Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! That is one of the funniest things I have read. Unless by "headway" to mean a "statistically insignificant" blip. Just wait for regression to the mean (and your mean is sub-1%; always has been)."
Linux has almost 5% of the desktop market, and - via android - has so much of the mobile market that the combined PC and mobile markets give Linux over 65% share. Rocks, glass houses.
"Run Photoshop, AutoCAD, Outlook, Word, Excel or many other vital industry applications."
Photoshop and AutoCAD I'll buy, but Word and Excel are only "vital" for some, and decreasingly so. Sorry buddy, but "feature parity" means fuck all in that space now. Office 2003 is just fine for oh, so many people, and LibreOffice finally matches it. It took a long time, but it's there. And there is really all it has to be.
"Oh, you mean support? I did not realise RedHat came with free support. Oh wait, it doesn't."
Red Hat has the option of not having support, and for that matter, not paying. It's called CentOS. I can do everything in CentOS that I can in RedHat. I have run entire businesses on CentOS for a decade. I still do.
Where's the equivalent for Windows? I can't even use Technet because you fucking bastards killed it. If I want to stand up a hyper-v environment in my testlab, with SCVMM and several hundred VMs, do you have any idea how much money that is?
Microsoft says that I should pay them full fare for all of that. For what, so I can write articles about their software? I don't make enough in a single year writing articles to pay even a tenth of that back. In fact, even an MSDN account with all the blue crystals is roughly double what I make in a given year from writing about Microsoft. Yet apparently it's cool beans to just say "fuck you, we're Microsoft" and fly off into the future with all three middle fingers raised tall.
Oh, you want me to stand up a test environment that self-immolates every 30 days? Exactly how many man-hours do you expect me to put into Microsoft's shit anyways?
With CentOS I can stand up an entire testlab, production infrastructure or run a fucking country for free. I only need pay support - by using RHEL instead of CentOS - for those individual systems where I feel the need.
And what about my small businesses? Pay and pay and pay and pay. And pay some more. And pay and then pay. And service providers? We'll have SPLA jacked up and jacked up again, while all Microsoft partners get our margins cut. And we still have to pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay. IN so many cases for nothing of value.
Why do I need "support" for my home server or my home instances of Windows? Or Office? Why can't I set up an Exchange server at home to learn on? Or get a copy of visual studio to help me get interested in coding for Windows 8?
Whey do I need to pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay and pay...
Look, I've no problem paying someone a fair price for their labour. I donate time, money and resources (in the form of manpower of individuals whose salary I pay for) towards the open source projects I use. I don't bat an eye at paying a one-time sticker price for an OS or an application. Iinvest in software because I expect to see a greater return from that software (in terms of increased productivity) than I put in.
That's before we get into the clusterfuck of VDI licensing. Or the bullshit that is client access licensing.
You have this knack of picking one element about Linux or the Linux ecosystem and then waving it around as though it is representative of the entire thing. Linux is not monolithic. Even less so than Microsoft is, and Microsoft is still a rough assemblage of warring fiefdoms united only by share price.
There are plenty of reasons to piss on Linux. I could go on for days. But you pick the stupidest things and then wave them around as though they are proof that Microsoft is excellence incarnate. If someone happens to raise a perfectly valid issue about Microsoft you fly off the handle and start attacking them, the software they use and anything else you can sink into.
So get down off your high horse and for the love of His Noodly Self try to have some objectivity, will you? All you do is piss people off. You add nothing to the conversation.
Maybe if you learned to be less douchy you could raise actual issues in a stable, not-batshit-crazy manner and discuss the pros and cons of a technology as it applies on a case-by-case basis like a real professional.
One size does not fit all, no matter how much you try to make edge cases into poison arrows.
SecureBoot - totally screwed on Linux. In fact, Linux might brick your PC if you try SecureBoot.
WOW, is that really the price of allowing Microsoft to design the boot process of a PC? That booting anything which isn't designed/written by Microsoft will actually "brick" the hardware?
Maybe they should get IBM involved in the next iteration, they managed a design which allowed Intel systems to boot any number of different operating systems.
Have you ever meat Eadon? You two would get along like a house on fire (in the literal sense that there would be great destruction).
Anyway, I'm not sure what obscure hardware you've been trying to install linux on, but if you try a bog standard Dell or Hp machine, and an up to date distro like Ubuntu you won't have any of those problems.
Even I know this, and I'm a Windows user, I run Windows at home, and support it at work.
I still find it amazing there are people who think Linux doesn't work, give a long list of problems, provide no facts, and have obviously not used it in some time.
Of course, and as with Windows, there are some problems. But I, in all my Linux installations, have rarely had any problems, and the number of problems I have had with Windows outweigh those I have had with Linux. I now use Linux of all homes machines (old and new), with no problems with graphics, sound, printers, networking etc. Compare that with Vista where I had persistent problems with wireless and eventually horrendous slow downs until the device expired.
Please please please, can all those people who continually bash Linux (and ALWAYS get the market penetration figures completely wrong), try it on a modern desktop or laptop, and just see how well it all works. Please. Then at least when you have a complaint (and you might) about it you will have some reason.
"all those people who continually bash Linux"
I think you will find this is the same sad AC that always comes up with this sort of thing. Why AC you might ask? Presumably so it is not easy to see their posting history as that would reveal it. At least the knob-end that was EADON was up front about his anti-MS rants.
Next thing they will be telling you, again without actual facts, that Windows is much more secure, etc.
Are you for real? Just try using Linux; everything I have said is true. You can find reports all over the web as well.
Optimus? Does not work. Simply. Does. Not. Work. End of.
Sound? Barely functional. Will it use OSS, ALSA or PulseAudio? No one knows. Will all the connectors jacks to the soundcard work? No. Will surround sound work? Not fully (impossible to adjust individual speak delay). This, of course, assumes your soundcard even work. Linux struggles to with the de facto standard for consumer audio (Creative).
Printing? Garbage. To have a hope of getting the printer to work you have to download and compile the driver yourself, and even then you only get partial functionality. And that functionality is itself flakey.
Power efficiency? Utter joke. Windows can run on this laptop for up to 11 hours (extended battery). Linux will kill it in 6. Oh wait, I should open a terminal and run "powertop". Why the fuck should I? The OS should *KNOW* it's on battery and optimise, Windows does. So I will go back to 1970 and use the terminal. Oh look, PulseAudio is pulling down 5W *WHEN THERE IS NO SOUND PLAYING*. And so on and so on. It's a total farce. The fanboys all scream about how "light" and "efficient" Linux is. Yeah? Why is it about twice as power hungry as Windows then?
None of these things should be an issue. None. But they are.
@AC.
Yes, edges cases for those things that are actually problematical.
As I said I have no problems with my desktops running Linux - printing works fine, sound works fine. The other items don't bother me and are therefore edge cases to me.
As for your comment which boils down to 'the internet said it so it must be true'. Do you really believe that? Do you really truly believe that you can make a accurate assessment of Linux and its capabilities from analysing bug reports on the web? Did you do the same for Windows? I bet you get more problems reported for Windows than Linux (even when you take in to account the different market penetrations)
Now, I'm not denying there are problems with Linux, but the majority of users have no problems at all with it. Just like the majority of users of Windows have no problems with their choice of OS.
"As for your comment which boils down to 'the internet said it so it must be true'. Do you really believe that?"
Sigh. I said "You can find reports all over the web as well." *AS WELL*
What I recounted is personal experience. Linux just has too many problems to be considered anything other than a total joke. Which probably explains why (almost) no one uses it on the desktop and it now lags behind Windows in the server room.
About the only place Linux has any traction is in super-computing, but there you have a team of PhDs to fix the brokeness of it all. Not something the typical user has access to.
> and it now lags behind Windows in the server room
You'll find that there are hundreds of Windows servers doing not-a-lot in server rooms but I'm seeing a large scale adoption of Linux for business critical systems. My experience has mostly been banking, investment banking, market data and the F and the T LA's - but Linux is everywhere. Even big banks are running Linux on mainframe LPAR running core banking systems. I've seen Linux eat up all the AIX and Solaris platforms at a large financial and whilst there are quite a few Windows Servers in the data centre, they're not in active/active clusters and don't have particularly high recovery time objectives.
Even CIFS file servers are becoming Linux based devices because they are cheaper and have better resilience. Folks are also beginning to see the problems of running multi-vendor HIPS/Malware detection/patch management on corporate Windows servers - it requires a hell of a lot more power whilst the world of data centres is trying to make services more granular and virtualised.
Obviously, my experience is with larger data centres but I would say that the trend is an increasing Linux adoption and I would not say that Windows Server products (outside of Exchange and Sharepoint) are making headway.
"About the only place Linux has any traction is in super-computing, but there you have a team of PhDs to fix the brokeness of it all. Not something the typical user has access to."
Like the Altix UV which runs standard SUSE Enterprise Linux.
Ref :http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/15/sgi_altix_sales_hadoop_prefabs/
"and expand from its own variant of SUSE Linux to a machine that can run standard SUSE Linux Enterprise Server or Red Hat Enterprise Linux as well as Microsoft's Windows Server 2008 R2.
SGI has been making a lot of noise lately about how Windows Server 2008 can run on its Altix UV 100 and 1000 machines, and in fact, the UltraViolet hardware scales far beyond the limits of that Windows OS at this point. The Windows kernel sees the"
"Like the Altix UV which runs standard SUSE Enterprise Linux.
Ref :http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/15/sgi_altix_sales_hadoop_prefabs/
"and expand from its own variant of SUSE Linux to a machine that can run standard SUSE Linux Enterprise Server or Red Hat Enterprise Linux as well as Microsoft's Windows Server 2008 R2....SGI has been making a lot of noise lately about how Windows Server 2008 can run on its Altix UV 100 and 1000 machines, and in fact, the UltraViolet hardware scales far beyond the limits of that Windows OS at this point. The Windows kernel sees the"
Please, dont talk about Linux scalability. It might even scale worse than Windows. First of all, there are at least, two different kind of scalabilty:
1) Horizontal scalability, scale-out. It is basically a cluster. Just add another node and the number crunching gets faster. These clusters typically have 10.000 of cores or even more. Supercomputers have many more. These clusters are used for HPC number crunching work loads, and can not handle SMP workloads.
2) Vertical scalabilty, scale-up. It is basically a single fat huge server. These huge servers, SMP-alike, typically have 16 or 32 sockets. Some even has 64 sockets. IBM Mainframes have up to 64 sockets. These costs much more than clusters. For instance, the IBM P595 with 32 sockets used for the old TPC-C record, costed $35 million list price. Can you imagine what a cluster with 32 sockets costs? Not $35 million. Probably it will cost 32 x 1 node. And if one node costs $5,000, it will be not be $35 million. These SMP-alike servers, are used for SMP workloads, typically running large databases in large configurations. HPC clusters can not do this (they can run a clustered database though, but not run a normal database).
Enterprise companies are only interested in SMP workloads (large enterprise databases etc). The reason Unix rules in Enterprise companies, is because Unix has huge SMP-alike servers capable of handling SMP workloads. Linux can not, Linux SMP servers dont exist. Linux is only used on HPC clusters, and Enterprise companies are not interested in HPC clusters.
Now regarding Linux scalability: Linux runs excellent on clusters (such as supercomputers), but scales quite bad on SMP alike servers. Linux has severe problems utilizing beyond 8-sockets. First of all, there have never existed any Linux server with 32 sockets, for sale. Recently, a couple of months ago, the Bullion released the first 16 socket Linux server. The first ever in history. And it is dog slow.
There has never ever been a 32-socket Linux server for sale. Never ever. If you know of one, please show us a link. You wont find any such a large SMP-alike server. Sure, people have compiled Linux onto IBM P795 AIX Unix server with 32 sockets - but that is not a Linux server. It is a Unix server. I could compile a C64-dos to it, and it would not make the IBM Unix server a C64. And people have compiled SuSE to HP's Unix Itanium/Integrity 64 socket server - but it is still a Unix server. They tried this before, and never sold Linux on the HP Unix server, google on "Big Tux Linux" for more information and see how bad Linux scalability it had, with ~40% cpu utilization running on 64 sockets. This means every other cpu was idling, under full load. How bad is not that?
Regarding the SGI UV1000 servers, they are clusters with 10.000 of cores. ScaleMP also has a huge Linux cluster with 10.000 of cores. It is a cluster running a software hypervisor, tricking the Linux kernel into believing it is running a SMP server - with bad scalability. Latency to nodes far away makes the cluster uncapable of handling SMP workloads. Latency on a SMP-alike server is very good in comparison, making them possible to run a large database on all cpus, without grinding to a halt.
Thus, Linux servers with 10.000 cores (that is, clusters) are not suitable of handling Enterprise SMP workloads. See yourself. The ScaleMP Linux cluster is only used for HPC number crunching:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/20/scalemp_supports_amd_opterons/
"...Since its founding in 2003, ScaleMP has tried a different approach. Instead of using special ASICs and interconnection protocols to lash together multiple server modes together into a SMP shared memory system, ScaleMP cooked up a special software hypervisor layer, called vSMP, that rides atop the x64 processors, memory controllers, and I/O controllers in multiple server nodes....vSMP takes multiple physical servers and – using InfiniBand as a backplane interconnect – makes them look like a giant virtual SMP server with a shared memory space. vSMP has its limits.
...
The vSMP hypervisor that glues systems together is not for every workload, but on workloads where there is a lot of message passing between server nodes – financial modeling, supercomputing, data analytics, and similar parallel workloads. Shai Fultheim, the company's founder and chief executive officer, says ScaleMP has over 300 customers now. "We focused on HPC as the low-hanging fruit..."
SGI talks about their large Linux clusters with 1000s of cores:
http://www.realworldtech.com/sgi-interview/6/
"...The success of Altix systems in the high performance computing market are a very positive sign for both Linux and Itanium. Clearly, the popularity of large processor count Altix systems dispels any notions of whether Linux is a scalable OS for scientific applications. Linux is quite popular for HPC and will continue to remain so in the future,
...
However, scientific applications (HPC) have very different operating characteristics from commercial applications (SMP). Typically, much of the work in scientific code is done inside loops, whereas commercial applications, such as database or ERP software are far more branch intensive. This makes the memory hierarchy more important, particularly the latency to main memory. Whether Linux can scale well with a SMP workload is an open question. However, there is no doubt that with each passing month, the scalability in such environments will improve. Unfortunately, SGI has no plans to move into this SMP market, at this point in time..."
Ergo, you see that Linux servers with 1000s of cores, are only used for HPC number crunching, and can not handle SMP alike workloads. SGI and ScaleMP says so, themselves.
And also, there has never been a 32 socket SMP-alike Linux server for sale. Until a couple of months ago, there was no 16-socket Linux server either for sale, but Bullion released the first generation Linux SMP-alike 16-socket server. Ever. And it performs very bad, just read the benchmarks.
In comparison, Unix on 16 or 32 or 64 sockets have performed very well for decades. Linux scales well on clusters, but extremely bad on SMP-alike huge Unix servers with up to 64 sockets. The thing is, Linux developers never had access to large SMP servers, so they can not tailor Linux to such work loads. Unix devs had been able to do this for decades. In some decades from now, maybe Linux will be able to handle 32 sockets well, too. But not today. Just read SGI and ScaleMP - all them are used for HPC and avoid SMP workloads - why?
"About the only place Linux has any traction is in super-computing, but there you have a team of PhDs to fix the brokeness of it all. Not something the typical user has access to."
I don't know why you had to get on your pet topic but the point of the post was to refute the assertion made above. The Altix runs standard Linux and doesn't need a team of PhDs to 'fix' it
The poster didn't mention scalability ! - you did
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
