Richard Stallman recently went
against cloud-based computing, and against Google's ChromeOS
in particular. Putting one's personal data on remote servers, he says,
necessarily entails loss of control over that data. It is far better to
keep one's data on a system which is under one's physical control. As with
most things, Richard has been most consistent with this message; he has
been saying similar things for a long time. But the increase in
cloud-based services - and systems designed to direct users toward them -
is adding urgency to this message.
Your editor does not always agree with Richard, but Richard has a point here.
We have worked for many years to build systems which we have some degree of
control over, with quite a bit of success. Even systems which have
traditionally been severely closed - phone handsets, for example - are
becoming more hackable over time. A suitably motivated and skilled user
can avoid proprietary software, and the long list of antifeatures such
software tends to include, much of the time. The situation is not perfect,
but things could certainly have been a lot worse.
When our systems become little more than a window into somebody else's
server, though, that control disappears. The results are predictable:
- People can come to depend on cloud-based services, but the providers
of those services assert their right to pull the plug at any time.
The eviction of Wikileaks from Amazon's cloud is a recent,
high-profile example, but almost every well-known network-based
service is followed by stories of users who have been locked out for
seemingly trivial (or nonsensical) reasons.
- Stories of data misuse abound. Facebook puts profile pictures into
advertisements served to others. Gmail reads
messages and tailors advertisements to match. Email addresses
find their way onto spam lists. Many sites track their users'
activity across the web as a whole and do their best to monetize that
information. And so on.
- Resources in the cloud are cloudy at best; reports
that Amazon has resumed deleting books that Kindle owners believed
they owned are just the latest example of when can happen when "our"
stuff lives at somebody else's will.
- Security breaches and data loss are a common occurrences.
- Many cloud-based services seem to maintain an open-door policy for
governmental agencies looking for information. There is no way to
know what information has been disclosed to whom.
With regard to the last item above, it is encouraging that a US appeals
court has just ruled
that email cannot be seized from a third-party provider without a search
warrant. But it is highly discouraging that such a ruling was necessary in
the first place. Seemingly obvious concepts - like the privacy of email -
seem to fall by the wayside when network-based providers are involved.
Given all this, one might well wonder why such services are seeing any use
at all. The simple fact of the matter is that they are awfully
convenient. A web-based email account is far easier to set up and maintain
than an independent mail server - even for those who have the skills to
maintain such a system. Anybody who has been through the tiresome
experience of moving into a new phone can only be thrilled when that new
Android handset automatically downloads the contact list - and all
previously-installed applications. Establishing contacts and sharing
information is easy on social networking sites - and essentially impossible
otherwise. These services have brought a wide range of capabilities and
features to a wide community of users; there is clear value in what these
companies are providing.
It is well to warn users of what they are giving up when they place their
personal information on such a site. Making sure people know when a cloud
provider misbehaves is clearly the right thing to do. Many LWN readers
heed those warnings and
take a great deal of care to limit the information given to cloud providers
and to maintain their own infrastructure. But it is futile to tell the
rest of the world to avoid cloud-based services when we cannot point them
to any alternatives that are useful to them. Such advice will be ignored,
and the message as a whole may be lost.
The right response to the cloud problem is to create alternatives which
give a higher degree of control - and which are usable by people who have
no interest in putting their time into making things actually work. That
means solving problems at a number of levels. We need applications which
provide a rich experience to users which are not tied to any specific
machine; the web is the obvious way to provide that experience, but it
might not be the only way. Needless to say, these applications must be
free software if we are to trust them at all.
We need freedom-friendly policies that raise
the bar for what users expect and demand. We need a mechanism for
deploying these applications on the net which allows users to easily create
and maintain their own instances while interoperating with others.
It would be good to contemplate what could be done when terabyte storage on
mobile platforms is commonplace - we can always have all of our data in our
pockets. With pieces like these in place, we might begin to have a story
which can compete with the existing providers.
Something else is needed, though: a means for financing these services must
be developed. "Free" is awfully nice, but, as people far wiser than your
editor have observed, if you are not paying for a service, you are not the
provider's customer - you are their product. That is a relationship which
will inevitably lead to conflicts of interest. Establishing a more
straightforward relationship between users and providers of online services
seems like an important step toward improving both control and privacy.
That does not mean getting companies out of the services business - indeed,
it could mean the opposite - but it does mean renegotiating the
relationship. (And, naturally, companies have all the same freedom and
privacy interests that individuals do when it comes to obtaining services
on the net).
Recent events have convinced many people that, as we have become
increasingly dependent on the net, we have also lost control over it.
We may see a more focused effort in the coming years to take back control
and freedom at the network level. As with all of these battles, it will be
difficult; there is no shortage of powerful interests pushing toward
central control. But it's one that we should be able to win.
Comments (45 posted)
On December 1st and 2nd, a group of about 40 leaders and
engineers in the embedded Linux community met in San Francisco for a
for two-day summit. On the table was the Linux Foundation's
Yocto project, which was
announced in October at the Embedded Linux Conference Europe (ELCE),
and aims to make the development of custom embedded Linux
systems simpler and easier. The Linux Foundation wants to see broad
industry adoption of and involvement in Yocto, and this meeting was
called to provide an overview of the project and to set up a community
governance process. As such, the engineers and management from a wide
cross-section of the industry were invited including representatives
from Intel, Wind River, MontaVista, Mentor Graphics, Linaro, Dell,
Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, Red Hat, and HP.
Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation opened the
summit and welcomed all the attendees with the results of a survey
that attendees were asked to fill out before the meeting. In typical
Zemlin style, he pronounced that in the embedded space, "Linux is kicking ass".
The bad news is that there is a shortage of
well-trained embedded Linux developer and, in particular, system
engineers. There is a desperate need to get more people "in the
tent". The merger of the Consumer Electronics Linux Forum
(CELF) with the Linux Foundation,
announced in October, along with
the Yocto project creation
announced at the same time, means that the Linux
Foundation is now directing significant resources toward improving the
state of embedded Linux development.
As a first step, the Zemlin announced that Richard Purdie, the
leader of the Poky project, has
become a Linux Foundation fellow
in the role of Yocto project architect.
Before the summit, attendees were surveyed about their view of the Yocto project and what they
would need to make it a useful technology. Rather than attempting to
analyze the results, Zemlin provided the raw answers to the room (with
names removed) so that attendees could make of it what they would.
Not surprisingly, it appears that few people are familiar with the Yocto
many were hoping to come out of the meeting with a better
understanding of what it was and whether or not it would be useful for
An overview of the project
The rest of the morning was devoted to an overview of the Yocto
project by Purdie and Dirk Hohndel, Intel's Chief Linux and Open Source
Technologist. According to Hohndel and Purdie, Yocto is an umbrella
project covering several initiatives with the goal of reducing the
duplication of effort required to build custom embedded Linux
systems. While there are numerous tools for building embedded
systems, such as
BuildRoot, all of them still
require a lot of pain and effort to stabilize into something usable.
Hohndel wants to "raise the bar and produce a great shared base
technology which is easy to build products on top of". Yocto aims to
achieve this goal by directing effort to improving the build tools,
providing tested releases, and improving documentation.
The most prominent component under the umbrella is the Poky build
system which is a derivative of OpenEmbedded. Additionally, Yocto
sponsors related projects including Pseudo: a fakeroot replacement,
Swabber: a tool that detects cross-build contamination from the host
filesystems, Eclipse and Anjuta plugins, and an SDK generator.
Documentation, testing, and a build/test infrastructure is also
covered. An complete list of projects can be found on the Yocto
Many questions were asked about the relationship between Poky, Yocto,
and OpenEmbedded. Rather than reiterate the discussion here, an
mailing list posting from Purdie provides an excellent overview, and
covers all of the points touched on in his presentation.
Poky is closely related to OpenEmbedded, and both projects share the
tool and much of the build package metadata. Poky is
sometimes characterized as a fork of OpenEmbedded, yet it does not
appear to be a competing fork since a great deal of care has been taken
to maintain compatibility between the two projects, and there is
a lot of cross-pollination of metadata and features.
Poky differs from OpenEmbedded in its focus and policies.
According to Purdie, while OpenEmbedded is a wonderful
tool, it is actually quite difficult to base a product on top of it.
Most companies using it need to make a large number of changes.
Poky, on the other hand, aims to be a well-tested, stabilized set of
build metadata in a form that requires far fewer changes for use in a
Questions were also asked about the relationship between Yocto
and MeeGo, and if the two projects were
duplicating effort. The answer is simply that the two projects
address completely different segments of the embedded Linux ecosystem.
Where MeeGo is about a common application framework and environment
with a stable ABI and a consistent interface, Yocto is instead focused on
highly customized device-specific embedded systems where all the
choices about what is included is up to the system builder.
Much concern was expressed about whether or not Yocto will be
effectively perceived as a single vendor project since it is being
championed by Intel and its subsidiary, Wind River.
Ironically, Intel and Wind River employees were within the
group expressing this concern. It would appear that the developers of
the project deeply believe in the Yocto approach, and don't want
to see it written off as an Intel-only tool. Both Hohndel and Zemlin
expressed several times that they really want to see Yocto become
a vendor-neutral project that improves the state of embedded Linux for
everyone. For this reason, ownership of the Yocto and Poky trademarks
have been transferred to the Linux Foundation, and the steering group
is open to all eligible member companies.
After lunch the meeting split into a technical track and a governance
track. The governance track was focused on choosing the structure
for the Yocto steering group. Prior to the summit, a
governance structure was drafted to be discussed at the meeting. As
much as possible, the governance structure is to take a hands-off
approach to the day-to-day and technical decisions of the project,
while still providing the advantages of a legal entity and to have a
mechanism for managing engineering and financial resources.
A steering group will be formed with one seat held by each of the
initial participating companies. In the spirit of hands-off governance, the
membership agreement is low-key with primary requirements
being to maintain at least one full time Yocto engineer and, in
Zemlin's words, "don't be a jerk". He wants to protect against the
possibility of a company joining the steering group in order to sabotage
the project, and so the membership agreement provides a mechanism for
removing unfriendly members. It would appear that the history lessons
of SCO and UnitedLinux have been learned, and Zemlin wants to protect against
the possibility of the entire project getting sabotaged by a single
From the companies represented in the governance track, the reception
was generally positive. A few people voiced concern that Yocto would
be yet another embedded Linux solution to support over and above
Android and OpenEmbedded. However, the close relationship between
Poky and OpenEmbedded somewhat mitigates those fears and some hope
was expressed that the two projects would continue to work together,
and possibly even merge.
Concern was also expressed that the Linux Foundation membership requirement
effectively excludes independent and community developers from holding
a seat on the steering group. According to Zemlin, the intent of
the membership requirements are to raise the bar so that only
committed companies become involved. The steering group is
completely free to waive requirements as needed to make sure that key
people are not excluded from participating.
Zemlin proposed polishing up the membership agreement and sending it out
to prospective members in the next week or so with the goal of
forming the initial steering group by mid-December. Once the initial
group is formed, the group itself can vote to change and
adapt the steering requirements as needed by the project. In fact,
one of the first tasks that will be put to the steering group after it is
formed is to review the membership policies and make decisions about
how the group should be composed. Questions like how large it should be, how
many seats will be held by community developers, and how members are
selected, will be addressed.
Preparing for 1.0
Meanwhile the technical track set out to spend the afternoon discussing
the current state of the project and what needs to be fixed or
completed before cutting a 1.0 release. A lot of time was devoted to
discussing the differences between OpenEmbedded and Poky, and by the
end of the day the technical track probably spent about as much time
on governance issues as the governance track did.
The development model is one of the major differences between
OpenEmbedded and Poky, and has been characterized as a push vs. pull
model. "Push" refers to the fact that many OpenEmbedded developers
have direct commit access to the source repositories. Poky has
instead adopted a "pull" model where one developer maintains the canonical
source tree and other developers send pull request to the maintainer
of said tree (similar to how Linus Torvalds maintains his Linux tree).
OpenEmbedded and Poky also differ in policy about what recipes are
accepted into the core repository. OpenEmbedded has historically
taken a laissez-faire approach where anything is acceptable, as long
as it doesn't break other things, and so it includes a huge number
of recipes. Unfortunately it's openness is double-edged sword since
many of those recipes are broken, unmaintained, or for ancient
versions of software. It is easy to get new recipes into
OpenEmbedded, but it is also very difficult to know which recipes
Poky on the other hand has strict policies about what is acceptable in
the core and only maintains recipes that are actually used and
tested. Typically Poky will not contain more than two recipes for a
given package; one known working version, and an unstable testing
version. It also keeps the scope limited to the core recipes
required to get a working build. It is not surprising that the 700
recipes currently in Poky are an order of magnitude fewer than the 8000
Instead of adding recipes to the core, Poky is extended by using
"layers". Layers are a mechanism for adding
additional recipes for things like board support,
special toolchains, new architectures, and applications on top of the
Since anything in Poky can be overridden or extended with a layer,
Poky users have lots of flexibility to adapt it to their needs.
Mark Hatle commented that a typical Wind River build will consist of
about 7 layers; the core, a toolchain layer, the kernel layer, a board
support package layer, and one or more user-space layers.
Poky and OpenEmbedded
The push vs. pull debate came to the forefront when the idea of merging
Poky with OpenEmbedded was raised.
Some developers in the Yocto project would like to see
Poky work more closely with OpenEmbedded, and effort has already been
expended in that direction. Koen Kooi, the founder of the
OpenEmbedded-based Ångström project and a Texas Instruments engineer,
stated that he's prototyped using the OpenEmbedded recipes required by
Ångström as a layer on top of Poky. It isn't a full OpenEmbedded
port, but it does demonstrate feasibility.
Specifically, the proposed idea is to use Poky as a "common core" layer
for both the Yocto and OpenEmbedded projects, and OpenEmbedded would
be maintained as layers on top of Poky. The advantage would be a
larger block of common functionality being used and tested by both
projects, which presumably would result in a better quality core.
Several OpenEmbedded developers were in the room,
and while all seemed
favorable to the idea, concern was
expressed that the OpenEmbedded community at large would not take
kindly to the change for a few reasons.
Requiring the developers to switch to a pull model for the core code
is the first concern, but it ended up being easy to address. Since
each layer gets its own source repository, layer maintainers
can make their own decisions about development process and
commit access. Plus, since anything can be overridden by a layer, an
OpenEmbedded layer would be able to change anything in the core code
that doesn't fit OpenEmbedded's needs.
Second was the concern that it would be viewed as a "hostile
takeover" of OpenEmbedded by Poky. Much hand wringing and worry
accompanied this possibility and a fair bit of time was consumed by
this discussion. Politically, any such move would require the agreement
of the OpenEmbedded board of directors, and have general assent from
the development community at large.
There was also some discussion about the name, and whether or not
using the "Poky" name would be palatable to the OpenEmbedded
community, or if it would be viewed as diluting the "OpenEmbedded
Brand". However, this seems to be the least of these concerns as
both Poky and OpenEmbedded developers expressed flexibility on
naming issues if it actually becomes an issue.
While many of the concerns raised during this discussion were
important and needed to be considered, there isn't much evidence that
there is actually a problem yet. The OpenEmbedded developers took an
action item away from the meeting to continue discussing using Poky as the
base layer for OpenEmbedded with the rest of the
developer community, with the intent of having some resolution
by the end of December. Since a proposal to include OpenEmbedded
representation in the Yocto
steering group is also on the table, the initial formation of the
steering group will probably be delayed until early January to give
the OpenEmbedded community time to resolve their concerns and to
nominate a representative.
After that, the summit seemed to wind down and focus on technical
details or the finer points of what Yocto would provide. Tim Bird's
statement that he's always like the design of OpenEmbedded, but has never been
able to get it to work became somewhat a mantra for the remainder of
the event, and "solve Tim's problem" was often heard in relation to
making Yocto a reliable and easy to use set of tools. The
was touched upon, as well as work needed on the BitBake user interface
and the IDE integration features. More questions were asked to
clarify details about policy and governance issues, but for the most
part no more big issues came up.
A number of action items were identified as the summit wound up.
The business folks from represented companies are going to get
together and come back with some form of joint declaration of support
for the project in the next month. The OpenEmbedded representatives
will discuss with the rest of their community about closer cooperation with
Poky and Yocto. Jon Masters asked if there was
a regular technical conference call for the project. Hohndel replied
that there is currently an Intel/Wind River call, but that the project
needs to decide if continuing with a conference call is the best way
Clearly the Yocto project is still in its infancy and there is a lot of work
to be done before it can truly be considered a vendor-neutral project.
However, judging from this meeting and from an informal poll of attendees
afterward, the project seems to be off to a good start and it is
likely to be adopted by the major embedded Linux and silicon vendors.
Overall the summit ended with a positive and optimistic tone any by
all indications Yocto is a project that embedded Linux engineers
should be keeping their eyes on.
Comments (8 posted)
Here is LWN's thirteenth annual timeline of significant events in the Linux
and free software world for the year.
In what is becoming a fairly standard pattern, 2010 brought various patent
lawsuits, company acquisitions, new initiatives, and new projects. It also
brought new releases of the software that we use on a daily basis. There
were licensing squabbles and development direction
disagreements—all things that we have come to expect from the Linux
and free software world over a year's time. Also as expected, though, were
the improvements in the kernel, applications, distributions, and so on that
make up that world. Linux and free software just keep chugging along, and
we are very happy to be able to keep on reporting about it.
Like last year, we will be breaking this up into quarters, and this is our
report on July-September 2010. Sometime in the next week or two, we'll put
out the timeline for the last quarter of 2010.
This is version 0.8 of the 2010 timeline. There are almost certainly some
errors or omissions; if you find any, please send them to firstname.lastname@example.org.
LWN subscribers have paid for the development of this timeline, along with
previous timelines and the weekly editions. If you like what you see here,
or elsewhere on the site, please consider subscribing to LWN.
For those with a nostalgic bent, our timeline index page has links
to the previous twelve timelines and some other retrospective articles
going all the way back to 1998.
Python 2.7 is released as the last major version in the 2.x series
When a respected information source covers something where you have
on-the-ground experience, the result is often to make you wonder how much
fecal matter you've swallowed in areas outside your own expertise.
3D graphics drivers that require proprietary user-space drivers (or
"blobs") are blocked from inclusion in the kernel by graphics
maintainer Dave Airlie (LWN coverage).
OpenSolaris governing board issues an ultimatum to Oracle
threatening dissolution if no contact person is put forward by Oracle (news
The first draft of an Open Source Hardware Definition is released
(draft, version 1.1).
Akademy, KDE's yearly conference, is held in Tampere, Finland (wrap-up
ISO changes its standardization processes to avoid some of the
abuses seen in Microsoft's OOXML push (LWN coverage).
The Battle for Wesnoth struggles with possible GPL violations because of
its appearance in the Apple App Store, which to some extent parallels
the Gnu Go problems in May (LWN article).
I appreciate the fact that [Motorola's Lori] Fraleigh and Motorola are
honest in their disdain for software developers. Unlike Apple - who tries
to hide how developer-unfriendly its mobile platform is - Motorola readily
admits that they seek to leave developers as helpless as possible, refusing
to share the necessary tools that developers need to upgrade devices and to
improve themselves, their community, and their software.
Ubuntu experiments with open font development, though the closed
beta of the Ubuntu font does raise some eyebrows (LWN coverage).
The Women's Caucus publishes recommendations for increasing the
participation of women in open source (recommendations).
The GNOME Users and Developers European Conference (GUADEC) is held in
The Hague, Netherlands (LWN coverage: Luis Villa keynote, GNOME 3 release plans, Privacy, encryption, and the
desktop, GNOME Shell, Banshee, and GUADEC notes).
OSCON is held in Portland, Oregon (LWN coverage: "Open phones" and Building communities).
FWIW, security by obscurity has a bad rep in some circles, but it is an
essential component of any serious security policy. It just should never be
the *only* component.
-- Guido van
Jos Poortvliet becomes the new openSUSE community manager, succeeding
Joe "Zonker" Brockmeier (announcement).
The EFF wins three DMCA exemptions for cellphone unlocking,
cellphone "jailbreaking", and fair use of DVD content (press release).
GNOME and KDE announce a second Desktop Summit to be held in Berlin,
Germany in August 2011—it will combine GUADEC and Akademy much as
was done at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit in 2009 (announcement).
Linux 2.6.35 is released (announcement, KernelNewbies summary).
If my corporate overlords told me I had to use my Exchange "messaging"
account for external email communication, they would get a quite clear 'no'
in response. My response may also contain suggestions that they use certain
other objects for purposes for which they were not designed.
AppArmor, the long out-of-tree kernel security module, is merged for the
2.6.36 kernel largely due to the efforts of Canonical (LWN blurb).
BusyBox once again prevails in a GPL enforcement suit (Groklaw
The fourth Linux Storage and Filesystems Summit is held just prior
to LinuxCon (LWN
reports: day 1 and day 2).
GNOME announces a new copyright assignment policy such that new
modules that require copyright assignment need to get explicit approval (announcement,
The Indian government has refused to let [researchers] review the machine,
and insists that it's tamper-proof. Even after the initial report came out
proving this not to be the case, the government has continued to insist the
machines are fine and have no problems. Here in the US, it's quite
troubling how much the government has relied on e-voting machines without
allowing security researchers to really test them, but at least they don't
arrest those who have been able to access and test the machines.
LinuxCon is held in Boston (LWN coverage: MeeGo, Media panel, One billion files, Two bootcharts, and LinuxCon moments).
Illumos, an fork of OpenSolaris, is announced in the wake of
much uncertainty in the OpenSolaris community (LWN coverage).
The Linux Foundation announces the Open Compliance Program to help
companies ensure they are complying with the free software licenses of the
code they use (Linux.com
Oracle sues Google over the Dalvik Java reimplementation that's used in
Android; the suit is for both patent and copyright violations (LWN's thoughts).
Combining both of their work together, they have been able to make a 20
minute long voice call from a baseband processor running a Free Software
GSM stack. For all we know, it is the first time anything remotely like
this has been done using community-developed Free Software. Five years ago
I would have thought it's impossible to pull this off with a small team of
volunteers. I'm very happy to see that I was wrong, and we actually could
do it. With less than half a dozen of developers, in less than nine months
of unpaid, spare-time work.
Allison Randal is named as Ubuntu Technical Architect in addition to
her role as Chief Architect for the Parrot virtual machine (announcement).
Vim 7.3 is released after two years of development on "Vi IMproved"
The OpenSolaris governing board resigns en masse as expected
due to Oracle's unwillingness to appoint a liaison to the board (Simon
Phipps's blog posting).
LinuxCon Brazil is held in São Paulo (LWN coverage: Linus & Andrew and Consumers, experts, or admins?).
CyanogenMod 6.0—replacement firmware for Android phones—is
released (LWN blurb and
Linux 22.214.171.124 is released for those still hanging onto the 2.4
series (announcement and 2.4 EOL
Lessons? Well, as many have noted, reporters do need to ask more questions
about too-good-to-be-true technology stories. Coders and architects need
to realize (as most do) that you simply can't build a safe, secure,
reliable system without consulting with other people in the field,
especially when your real adversary is a powerful and resourceful
state-sized actor, and this is your first major project.
O'Brien on Haystack
The Mozilla Labs Gaming project is announced to foster web gaming
Microsoft's CodePlex.com code hosting site donates $25,000 for Mercurial
development, assisting with project lead Matt Mackall's efforts to
fund his work on the distributed version control system (DVCS) (announcement).
Linus Torvalds becomes a US citizen, which delays some patch testing
while he registers to vote (lkml
Broadcom releases an open source driver for its current wireless
chipsets, but notably does not free the firmware for earlier chipsets
(announcement, LWN coverage).
Nevertheless, everyone I know that has reviewed the newly released
[Broadcom] driver code is being treated for eye cancer. I wouldn't expect
to see it in F-14.
Fedora decides not to ship systemd in Fedora 14 in a rather
late-breaking change; it should reappear in Fedora 15 (FESCO meeting minutes, related
The Mageia community fork of Mandriva is announced (announcement, LWN article).
PostgreSQL 9.0 is released (announcement, LWN article).
Diaspora makes its first code release of the alternative free social
networking platform, though there
are some major security concerns with the early release (announcement,
Qt 4.7 is released (announcement,
Oracle updates the kernel used in its RHEL-based "Unbreakable Linux",
moving from 2.6.18 to 2.6.32 which may show other enterprise Linux vendors
that they don't have to drag old kernels forward forever (LWN blurb).
My package made it into Debian-main because it looked innocuous enough; no
one noticed "locusts" in the dependency list.
The LibreOffice fork of OpenOffice.org is announced by a large
portion of the OOo development community (announcement, LWN interview with Michael Meeks).
Linux-Kongress is held in Nürnberg, Germany (LWN coverage: GSM security).
LinuxCon Japan is held in Tokyo (LWN coverage: Stable kernels, Kernel messages, and SSDs and the block layer).
GNOME 2.32 is released as the last in the 2.x series (announcement, new features).
Comments (none posted)
Page editor: Jonathan Corbet
Next page: Security>>