Jakub Jelinek announced the availability of GCC 4.3.1 saying, "GCC 4.3.1 is a bug-fix release, containing fixes for regressions in GCC 4.3.0 relative to previous GCC releases." He adds the standard tag, "as always, a vast number of people contributed to this GCC release -- far too many to thank individually!"

GCC is the GNU Compiler Collection which includes C, C++, Objective-C, Fortran, Java, and Ada compilers. Download GCC 4.3.1 from your nearest gcc.gnu.org mirror.

Constantine Murenin offered a history of the OpenBSD hardware sensors framework during his talk at BSDCan 2008, describing how it was originally based on a port from NetBSD, then evolved and was eventually ported to all the BSDs. He also discussed his own involvement with the framework, having ported it from OpenBSD to FreeBSD as a Summer of Code project, and how his port was merged into DragonFly BSD. At the end of the talk, there were some interesting ecxhanges between Constantine and Poul-Henning Kamp, the latter explaining why he'd had the code backed out of FreeBSD and why he continues to oppose it being merged back in.

"Another week, another batch of mostly pretty small fixes. Hopefully the regression list is shrinking, and we've fixed at least a couple of the oopses on Arjan's list," said Linux creator Linus Torvalds, announcing the 2.6.26-rc5 kernel. He added, "as usual, the bulk of the changes are in drivers and arch code - together they are about 70% of the diffstat. And the arch stats are bloated by some new/updated SH and avr defconfig files, which is also fairly common at this stage." Linus concluded:

"Perhaps unusually, 13% is in kernel/, almost all of it fixing up some scheduler issues - with the bulk of it by far being a couple of reverts due to performance regressions. But there's a few other fixes too. And then there is networking and some ocfs2 updates. Along with various one-liners sprinkled all around.

"The shortlog (appended) gives a reasonable view of it all. Nothing hugely exciting sticks to my mind, but then I don't think we've had any really hugely exciting problem spots either.."

Tony Luck offered some statistics focused on the frequency of developers that only contribute to the Linux kernel one time, "I skimmed through looking for drive-by contributors (defined as someone who contributes to just one release and is then never heard from again)." Starting with the 2.6.11 kernel, he suggested the following numbers: "63 [developers contributed patches] in version 2.6.11 [and then were] never seen again, 148 in version 2.6.12, 128 in version 2.6.13, 92 in version 2.6.14, 96 in version 2.6.15, 122 in version 2.6.16, 137 in version 2.6.17, 140 in version 2.6.18, 135 in version 2.6.19, 95 in version 2.6.20, 136 in version 2.6.21, 153 in version 2.6.22, 179 in version 2.6.23, 179 in version 2.6.24, and 304 in version 2.6.25".

It was pointed out that the statistics were artificially inflated due to name misspellings and other variations, and that many of the listed people are actually still working with the Linux kernel. Greg KH added, "well, you do know that the distribution of all of our users are: 50% only contributed 1 patch; 25% contributed 2; 12% contributed 3; 6% contributed 4 and so on?" He went on to point out:

"Our curve is leveling out much better now though. For the whole 2.5 release, the top 30 people did over 80% of the work. Now, the top 30 people are doing 30% of the work. So it is getting much better, as long as we still continue to keep our massive rate of change that we have going, and huge number of developers, we should be fine. So this list doesn't necessarily mean anything is wrong, only that 50% are one-time contributors. And I think that shows we are easy to get a change into our tree from just about anyone, not that we are driving people away."

"The http://www.kerneloops.org website collects kernel oops and warning reports from various mailing lists and bugzillas as well as with a client users can install to auto-submit oopses," began Arjan van de Ven, referring to a website first announced last December. He summarized, "this week, a total of 3670 oopses and warnings have been reported, compared to 3029 reports in the previous week." The 'kerneloops' client is available from the project's web page, and is now being included by multiple distributions. Arjan explains, "in addition to Fedora, Debian now has included the client application in their default GUI install targets, thanks a lot for that!" He went on to discuss some recent changes:

"This week, based on feedback, I've split the report into 'untainted' and 'caused by proprietary drivers'. Let me know if I should continue doing this or if the old format was better.

"As an experiment (on request) I've exported the database to text files (one file per report) and stuck it in a git repository. You can take a look with git clone git://www.kerneloops.org/ Suggestions for improving the format of this are obviously very welcome, as are 'yes useful' and 'no not useful' comments. Again, this is an experiment, if it's not seen as useful I may discontinue it."

In April, 2.4 kernel maintainer Willy Tarreau queried the Linux kernel mailing list regarding how the 2.4 kernel is still being used. He followed up summarizing the responses, suggesting that about 5% of 2.4 users run the kernel on old recycled laptops at home or on PDA's and thin clients, running whatever works with no real need to upgrade. Another 5% of the users are on desktop PCs and monitoring stations, not upgrading because "it works". From there, about 50% of the users run the 2.4 kernel on general purpose servers and update regularly, still running the older kernel due to lack of need for new features and lack of time, and possibly due to failed earlier attempts to upgrade. Another 20% use the 2.4 kernel on application specific servers where reliability is of the highest importance. 10% of the users run the older stable kernel on routers, firewalls, and intrusion detections systems, with 1 to 2 year uptimes and limited updates in a business setting, and shorter uptimes and frequent updates in a personal setting. The final 10% or so use the kernel in embedded systems where stability is again very important, and the build tree may be highly modified, causing at least one major network equipment manufacturer to still be shipping devices with the 2.4.2 kernel. Willy continued:

"Based on that and on the workflow people took the time to explain, I realize that the distinction between -pre and -rc is useless (ding! Linus if you read this, don't beat me). In fact, either people want absolute reliability and they pick one kernel from the stable 2.4.X.Y branch, or they want more recent updates and they simply do their shopping in the -master branch, which is fairly easy thanks to the Gitweb interface. But there are almost no testers in 2.4, just users. That means that I don't have to expect immediate feedback when posting a pre-release. And it has happened several times that I got a build error report several weeks after the release.

"Also, since most people do not update more than 1 - 2 times a year, it's not very useful to have more than 1 - 2 new versions a year, especially since we have the stable release. For this reason, I think I will issue stable releases a bit more often for users to quickly get their fixes, but progressively increase the delay between major releases. Those ones will only be issued with new PCI IDs, major driver updates, compiler support, etc..."

"In the early days, the project was conceived as a way of getting fresh blood into kernel development by giving them fairly simple but generally useful tasks and hoping they'd move more into the mainstream," began James Bottomley starting a thread titled Fixing the Kernel Janitors project. He continued, "if we wind forwards to 2008, there's considerable and rising friction being generated by janitorial patches,", references a recent thread complaining about worthless patches hitting the lkml. Later in the thread he added:

"That's why I think we have to change the process. If we keep the Janitors project, then the bar has to be raised so that it becomes more participatory and thought oriented (i.e. eliminate from the outset anyone who is not going to graduate from mechanical changes to more useful ones). That's why I think bug finding and reporting is a better thing to do. There are mechanical aspects to finding bugs but it is a useful service. Bug fixing is participatory because we usually do quite a lot of back and forth between the reporter and the fixer and at the end of the day quite a few people get curious about how the bug was triggered in the first place and actually go off and read the code."

"The OpenBSD Foundation is pleased to announce that it has completed arrangements with the University of Alberta in Edmonton to host the 2008 Annual OpenBSD Developer's Conference (C2K8 Hackathon) from June 7 to June 15, 2008," stated an announcement by the OpenBSD Foundation, continuing:

"The facility support from the University of Alberta Computer Science Department will provide C2K8 the best facilities yet for the annual OpenBSD Developer Conference. C2K8 will be the 10th annual event of its kind. Previous hackathons have produced tools such as the PF firewall, OpenBGP, relayd and spamd, as well as innumerable critical improvements to OpenBSD, OpenSSH, and related projects.

"This year, the OpenBSD Foundation will disburse approximately $15,000 to support C2K8, enabling more than 50 OpenBSD developers from around the world to attend this important event. The Foundation thanks all who have generously donated the resources to make C2K8 possible."