SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Linus Torvalds has just announced that the new Linux kernel 4.3 has been released and is now available for download. This marks the end of a new development cycle, for 4.3, and the beginning of the next one, 4.4.
The new Linux kernel 4.3 has finally arrived, and it looks like no major problems have troubled the developers. As usual, the new Linux kernel packs an assortment of changes and improvements, and we'll likely see it integrated very soon in a host of operating systems. This is not a long term release, so there won't be a lot of updates down the line, but any kernel upgrade is usually a good one.
In fact, developers announced just a short while ago that Linux kernel 4.4 would be the next LTS release, which is something that hasn't been done before. Usually, kernels were declared LTS (long term support) after their release, but now we know ahead of time. This will make some fascinating research, as the number of people willing to upgrade to version 4.3 will be smaller since they know that 4.4 LTS is on its way.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday November 04 2015, @04:26PM
I wouldn't say flaky. Out there? Yes. GNU, the OS, actually works. And it was working by 1989 with a full suite of userland tools, services and compilers. It just so happens that Linus got his kernel working and made a useable OS out of GNU before there was a useable Hurd kernel. Linux was released in 1991 while the Hurd kernel project was started in 1990.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 04 2015, @06:18PM
It seems the GNU folks have moved the goalposts over the last ten years, or whenever it was that I last paid attention. So it seems that now the userland tools are the "OS"? Before it was "linux is the OS, but it wouldn't be useful without the userland tools", now it is "the userland tools are the OS".
So, I suppose this "GNU OS" thing can't stand on its own, so it needs a "kernel" to run, so I suppose now we have to start calling it the Linux/GNU operating system? How can you call it an "OS" if it doesn't have a kernel, micro, macro, or monolithic? So what is the core GNU OS? It apparently isn't the kernel. If I completely write my own system from the ground up, but I end up using the GNU "ls" function, does that make my system a GNU/whatever system now? Was Ballmer essentially correct all along that GNU really is a virus in the sense that, once it touches your system, it now infects it?
(Score: 3, Informative) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday November 04 2015, @10:38PM
You are very confused. No one moved anything. GNU is what we interact with. From the shell to the command line tools and the compilers and libraries that built them. From those tools, all other software was built like Apache, Xorg and Gnome. That is what makes my computer useful. Linux provides the glue to allow those POSIX syscalls from GNU to work on my computer. So yea, both of them make my computer useful. But it's GNU that I interact with, not the kernel. That is an operating system, the tools. The kernel just enables them.
The Linux kernel is not part of the GNU project. It is maintained by the Linux Kernel Organization. This is why GNU is not Linux and Linux is not GNU. Other userspace interfaces can run atop Linux like Android and embedded systems using busybox as userspace. Conversely, GNU can run atop other kernels such as Debians GNU/kFreeBSD, GNU-Darwin/OpenDarwin and the now defunct Nexenta OS (Solaris kernel). You just need to understand that though they work great together, they aren't tied together. Hell, I bet if Microsoft fully implemented POSIX in NT instead of partially and then abandoning it, NT could run GNU without any win32 wrappers like Cygwin needs. Think about that for a minute: Microsoft GNU/NT. Maybe they could call it GNU/Xenix :-D.
Also of note: Linux is a generic term that was simply applied to GNU/Linux. Before it was officially called GNU/Linux, Torvalds called it Linux. There were also a few names used in the early years like GNU-Linux Linux/GNU/X and Stallman once used the rather ugly Lignux (See the GNU in there?) before settling on GNU/Linux.
And FYI, ballmer was spreading FUD about the GNU GPL license, not the GNU OS.