Ubuntu 16.10 To Be Powered By Linux Kernel 4.8 (softpedia.com) 58
Reader prisoninmate shares a Softpedia report: We've been monitoring the Ubuntu 16.10 development cycle for quite some time now to see what Linux kernel version the upcoming GNU/Linux operating system will be based on, and for now, it remains powered by the same kernel packages as Ubuntu 16.04 LTS (Xenial Xerus). Also, it looks like Ubuntu 16.10 has been switched to a universal local DNS resolver service. However, the Ubuntu Kernel Team published the other day a new installation of their weekly newsletter, informing the community that Ubuntu 16.10 (Yakkety Yak) would soon be rebased on the latest stable Linux 4.6 kernels. Then, it will move to the Release Candidate builds of Linux kernel 4.7, and after that, the operating system will finally be switched to Linux kernel 4.8.
Re: (Score:2)
Niche distros are not a replacment for Debian. (Score:3, Interesting)
Those distros you mention are not replacements for modern, mainstream distros like Debian or Ubuntu in any way.
Slackware is ancient, and requires far too much work to get it reasonably usable. Maybe it's good if you're a hobbyist Linux user who likes to tinker on the weekend, but Slackware is just not an option for anyone who needs to get real work done quickly.
Gentoo isn't much better than Slackware. Its compilation approach isn't an option for most people, too. They don't want to wait minutes, hours or ev
Re: (Score:2)
If people are migrating to FreeBSD, why are there no stats that supports this claim?
When you look at BuiltWith:
BuiltWith OS statistics [builtwith.com]
I don't see a big upsurge of FreeBSD, at least not what I would expect. Around October 2015 it was gaining users/servers, but it is now slowly declining.
In fact, I don't think people are migrating that much to FreeBSD. I think Debian is slowly losing ground. The rock-solid reputation of Debian is no longer true. I don't know what happened, but I think they didn't gain th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those distros you mention are not replacements for modern, mainstream distros like Debian or Ubuntu in any way.
Slackware is ancient, and requires far too much work to get it reasonably usable. Maybe it's good if you're a hobbyist Linux user who likes to tinker on the weekend, but Slackware is just not an option for anyone who needs to get real work done quickly.
Pick one:
1. I want a niche distro that accommodates my needs (i.e. to use an otherwise unsupported init system that most people now view as antiquated).
2. I want a mainstream distro that utilizes mainstream technologies.
3. I will create/maintain/fund my own distro that is my specific preferential combination of 1 & 2.
okay... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe the Linux Kernel 4.8 is magical or something?
Re: (Score:3)
why is this news?
Because Ubuntu is a brand and Canonical actively advertises its brand every chance it gets, whether it is newsworthy or not.
w00t (Score:4, Funny)
Just told my Grandmother the great news. She can't wait to try this out!
Re: (Score:2)
It's simple enough for me. I just looked at my system this weekend and realized I'm not even running LVM, and that it's a holy hell of stuff that just kind of fell into place because I haven't been picking it apart with tweezers. I've been running as a regular old user, using the software center and GUI tools for a long time; I even used the Software Center to install Steam by clicking the "Software" icon and typing "Steam".
At the same time, I'm designing a new swap daemon to manage swap on Linux. Tha
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't it be easier to send in a patch fixing the dumb default swap partition size or just click the "manual" button when it asks about setting up partitions if you know your system is a couple standard deviations away from the norm?
We already suffer from too many daemons running (monolithically controlled or not).
Re: (Score:2)
Easier? Yes. Better? No.
How much swap should we set up? How much swap is optimal? How much swap do you need? Does your usage differ from my usage?
I originally worked out a management daemon because I wanted to use up to a certain amount of memory for compressed paging *without* using a fixed-sized on-disk backend (zswap), and that's not currently possible. Much of the time, my RAM compresses to 25% of its original size; often it's compressed to 33%; and large workloads including difficult-to-comp
Re: (Score:2)
The parent comment isn't flamebait. (Score:1, Interesting)
The parent comment should not be modded flamebait. It obviously isn't. It makes numerous true, although painful, observations about the sorry state of Linux distros today. Instead of trying to censor that description of reality, the Linux community should take it to heart.
The fact that Linux is at maybe 1% or 2% of the desktop/laptop market, with Windows at about 85% and OS X taking the rest, completely backs up what the parent wrote. This is even after the Windows 8, and to a lesser extent Windows 10, disa
Re: (Score:2)
The parent comment should not be modded flamebait. It obviously isn't. It makes numerous true, although painful, observations about the sorry state of Linux distros today.
The parent makes numerous false statements based on his own tiny point of view and use case of Linux. The argument he is making is about laypeople's opinion and none of what he writes is at all relevant or even seen from their perspective.
That's what the flamebait mod is for. Posting irrelevant crap in order to cause argument about something that isn't at all relevant. A perfect mod.
As for your "statistics". People don't chose their OS. It comes with their computer, that's not Linux's failing that's Microso
Re:The parent comment isn't flamebait. (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with the sentiment that Linux "went stupid", though we seem to be getting back to a competitive place again, and I understand why it happened.
Basically the existing infrastructure had in many ways been pushed to the limits of what it could achieve. It offered a solid, viable, mature alternative to Windows, but had very little room for further growth - basic design assumptions made a decade before were beginning to present serious challenges to offering further features, especially in the realm of responsive multimedia (I can't tell you the problems I encountered with sound and advanced 3D graphics) and general "bling". Largely irrelevant to serious work, but serious roadblocks to further competition for desktop users with Windows XP and beyond, with it's relatively solid kernel and focus on being multimedia and game friendly. It's important to remember that XP was itself a massive reworking of the Windows system and GUI to shed the limits of it's predecessors, but it benefited from massive corporate coffers that could fund extensive testing and "polish" before deployment. And it still took a few years and a couple major updates before it was really "ready".
Gnome3 and KDE4 were "answers" to the maturity issue. The previous versions were, pretty much, finished. They did pretty much everything well, and had been pushed about as far as they could be without seriously coercing things to do stuff they were never designed for, which makes for unpleasant coding, a major issue when development depends on volunteers. If you were a UI developer there was no longer much more to be enjoyed short of a major infrastructure overhaul to add massive new potential, aka Gnome3 and KDE 4. My only real complaint is that they were adopted as the default by so many major distros while still half-baked - at that point they offered little real benefit to either users or distro developers other than hype and "bling", and cost a great deal in stability and maturity.
SystemD on the other hand promised a huge benefit to distro developers in the form of offloading a whole lot of infrastructure maintenance to a separate project, and (ideally) few user-visible changes. It too was adopted before it was ready, but in that case it was pretty much necessary (assuming the eventual adoption was desired). System infrastructure requires testing across a wide range of hardware, which requires wide deployment. And unlike the GUI, it's too tightly integrated to just be swapped around as desired on a live system.
Re: (Score:2)
The non-linux folks that use Ubuntu have presumably had it set up by their kids and never concern themselves with whether the code name for the system is Xenial Xerus - or anything else. Y'know, Windows versions have code names too - nobody pays attention to them, and they're only used during the development process. Hell, MacOS uses silly can and mountain names for their official releases.
Linux can make a fine newby system - for users who aren't going to set it up for themselves and who have a friend or
Re:Why linux fails to be adopted by the masses... (Score:4, Informative)
I hate to break it to you, but the code-naming convention is nothing specific to Ubuntu, they just get slightly more silly about it with their alliteration, and the names are more user-visible, which isn't surprising considering there's a whole lot more overlap between the user and development base. I do wish fewer people would use them though, the version number is far more concise and informative. But then I wish the same thing about OS X and its silly cat names - Is Panther newer or older than Leopard, and where does Lion fit into things? At least with Ubuntu the code names are in alphabetical order.
It's not limited to the "cute" OSes either. Perhaps you've used a few of: Sparta, Snowball, Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Millenium, Razzle, Wolfpack, Whistler, Freestyle, Longhorn, Blackcomb, Blue, and Threshold. All versions of Windows, though at least they have the good taste not to put the name on the box.
As for the configuration files - I hate to break it to you, but Windows and OS X do the same thing. They just don't publicize it, so if you don't see an option you tend to assume it doesn't exist. There's a LOT of extra options in both that you can only modify by directly editing configuration files or the registry. If you've never run into a problem that can only be solved by serious registry editing consider yourself lucky. Or unlucky, if you resorted to reinstalling windows from scratch instead.
Where the command line is concerned, it's usually not that common settings can't be changed through the GUI, it's just that when someone asks for help, it's much easier for an expert to tell them "type these two lines into the terminal and paste the output back here if it doesn't solve the problem" than trying to hand-hold them through navigating the GUI alternative and then try to extract useful information from them afterwards. Just the initial "try this" post will probably be 10x as long, and require walking through the GUI yourself to make sure you don't skip any windows or tab-changes that will confuse the asker. Believe me, that's a headache worth avoiding whenever possible, especially since most askers are terrible at following directions perfectly, just want their problem solved, and won't learn anything useful from the process regardless. If Windows had a similarly powerful and convenient command line you'd see the exact same thing in Windows help forums. That you don't is far more a symptom of Window's anemic command line than a lack of Linux GUI options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why linux fails to be adopted by the masses... (Score:5, Insightful)
Version 16.1 (Xenial Xerus) kernel 4.8. Non-linux people look at the wide quagmire of distros and are baffled, many interested people who would like a desktop alternative get turned off by the impenetrable complexity
No they don't. They get told Ubuntu or Mint are good and go download it. Then they maybe do or maybe don't. No one sees Linux complexity except for the mythical super ASD who insists that his first foray into Linux should be to google for a list of all distributions.
and holy wars of the community (systemd, whatever the hell that is, I don't give a crap, vi, emacs, etc).
No one outside of Slashdot and the admin forums of a few distros gives a shit about this. You don't see mention of this in the community you got to for help because LibreOffice isn't doing something right.
Then you get to Ubuntu as the one targeting non-linux folks to join up, and are confronted with this BS. Xenial Xerus? Really? You picked a revision number, why add a really stupid moniker to it?
Keep it simple stupid.
I'm going to go with no again. Go to Ubuntu homepage, there's no mention of the version name. Not on their home page, not on the desktop sub page, not on the download page, not during installation, and not when booting.
Linux a pool of contradiction. "We have a GUI as good as Windows/OSX!" But then GUI users are mocked, and frankly the GUI is only half heartedly implemented, sort of a facade. Real work is done at the command line, and important settings are only available by knowing where esoteric files in a variety of scripting languages live that then must be modified using an editor the proudly user surly.
There's nothing contradictory about Linux. No one praises it's GUI. They praise its customisability but that's as far as it goes. As for the "real work". Who's real work? Let me see you use a WYSIWYG word processor on the command line. ... Wait you don't think grandma is trying to setup a LAMP stack on her system do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I do. I love the GUI. At least I love my GUI, centered around Openbox. It's the main reason I use Linux by choice instead of Windows or OS X. It's easy enough to get much the same command line on both of them, and with OS X it's basically already there, embedded in the dumbed-down OS X GUI. My GUI got like it is because I could customize it, so customisability is certainl
Re: (Score:2)
Version 16.1 (Xenial Xerus) kernel 4.8. Non-linux people look at the wide quagmire of distros and are baffled, many interested people who would like a desktop alternative get turned off by the impenetrable complexity and holy wars of the community (systemd, whatever the hell that is, I don't give a crap, vi, emacs, etc). Then you get to Ubuntu as the one targeting non-linux folks to join up, and are confronted with this BS. Xenial Xerus? Really? You picked a revision number, why add a really stupid moniker to it?
You're right. Users could never deal with names like Microsoft Windows 10 Pro Build 14361.rs1_release "Redstone", Apple Mac OS X 10.11 "El Capitan" (Darwin Kernel Version 15.5.0, xnu-3248.50.21~8/RELEASE_X86_64), or Solaris 10 (SunOS 5.10). Oh wait, they don't really care. If they are installing Linux they go to Ubuntu's [slashdot.org], Fedora's [slashdot.org], or whatever distribution's website, and click download and install it. Or, if they aren't tech savvy, they don't change the OS period. Vi vs EMACS? User doesn't care. Avera
Rolling release (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu being a long supported Linux is one of the reasons I use it (RH being the other option). Rolling release is a fad that causes too many headaches.
Sweet ... just multiply version by 10! (Score:2)
Multiply by 10 and then kernel.org can compete with likes of Chrome (v 51.0) and Mozilla (v.47.0)