No, he's describing a problem (wayward DLL updates by applications) that has been largely solved in Windows 2000. Apps aren't allowed to arbitrarily update system libraries. A whole library management system has been put in to handle apps that try to do so.
No more having to listen to Hans Reiser take temper tantrums on the kernel mailing lists. I've never read more juvenile, whining, self-centered, arrogant, and childish posts in all my life. Rather than admit that maybe it wasn't appropriate for his code to be in the development kernel at a time when they were trying to freeze it, he whined, complained, and insulted everyone. Unable to acknowledge the technical reasons, he started accusing the core developers of favoritism, eliteness, and eventually just decided that there was one big conspiracy against him.
Although it saddens me that his code made it into the kernel, because of his behaviour, at least I won't have to read any more of his bitching.
It definitely gives me some insight as to why some people won't use GNU or GNU/Linux because RMS is the "spokesperson."
--
Re:People, please use the mirrors!
by
xcyber
·
· Score: 1
actually the ftp.*.kernel.org is not updated...
-- xcyber
""""""Complexity for the sake of complexity is not a solution,
neither is simplicity for the sake of simplicity
This is either a troll or a case of bad misinformation. Odd version numbers are development (unstable), but that's the middle number, not the final one. so 2.4.1 is stable, because 4 is even. the 2.5 series will open in a few months time, and will eventually lead up to 2.6 or 3.0 or whatever the next stable branch is called.
The only differance is Linux isn't attaining global domination with massive marketing tie in's, illegal monopoly leveraging, and an airtight legal disclaimer wrapped around a shoddy rip-off implementation of other people's creations.
Other Msft bashes include last Sunday's Dave Barry column about his BSOD'ing pc, and this morning ABCNews has this blurb about "If Msft can be hacked is anybody safe". Hahahaha, silly mass media. That's like asking, if McDonalds food isn't so good, can ANY restaurant make a good meal? I mean, they're the largest restaurant chain in existance! They MUST have the best food. Duuuuh. Public opinion will turn eventually, and no $200,000,000 advertising campaign can keep their grand self delusion going forever.
Re:Troll Fugue in B# Major
by
Rares+Marian
·
· Score: 1
The how come I'd doing Video recording Linux?
-- The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Re:2.4.1 is (not) DEVELOPMENT
by
maroberts
·
· Score: 1
2.4.1 is a formal stable release, not development.
The middle number of the 3 is even for stable releases, odd for development releases. The last digit is used to indicate (small) incremental upgrades and patches.
New development features will go in the 2.5.x (or 3.1.x if we really want change) tree.
--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Re:yes, I am pleased, but...
by
xcyber
·
· Score: 1
how about iptables?
-- xcyber
""""""Complexity for the sake of complexity is not a solution,
neither is simplicity for the sake of simplicity
The kernel docs explicitly state that if you're using PGCC, you're nuts. There's a reason those changes haven't been rolled into gcc yet. Incidentally, there's no such thing as egcs anymore. And finally, there's no sense in reporting bugs in the CVS tree without a corresponding fix or a very very well-narrowed problem definition--it's still in devel, and "it doesn't work for x" is not a big help in getting things fixed.
I've been digging for VIA IDE info too since I upgraded my mobo/cpu yesterday morning. I got a MSI K7T pro 2A (ata 100). Defaulting to DMA at boot up with 2.4.0 made my HD go BOOM. Check out signal ground for the most recent VIA IDE drivers:
Now I'm waiting for it to be put in distros. I guess I find it annoying how some distros (Mandrake,
RedHat) go crazy if you change their kernel. However, they are better for getting a desktop to JUST
WORK out of the box.
Heh. I'm currently running kernel 2.2.17 on this box that started it's life as RH 5.2. Sure, I've upgraded stuff via RPM and source tar.gz:s quite a lot during the last almost two years, but it works.;) I haven't even used the distribution upgrade options available via the newer distributions.
-- Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
The only problem I had getting 2.4.0 to work with my RH 7 workstation was with USB...I had to tweak one line in the/etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit file, and that was because 2.4 was actually displaying my USB character devices in/proc/devices, whereas 2.2.14 did not.
The one thing that will save you many headaches when upgrading your Red Hat kernel is to modularize as much as possible. This is the way that Red Hat's system initialization scripts like it, and it's probably good practice anyway.
Huh? Can you point us at where the "linux community as a whole" critize MS for putting out regular
patches and upgrades?
If anything, what I've seen most of is that they
are critizised for being too slow to issue
patches and upgrades, and also for releasing products that are claimed to be stable even when
theres tons of outstanding bugs.
And 2.3 got up a lot higher than 12 or 13, but 2.3
is a development kernel - it's was not intended
for normal use - all Linux releases 2.x.y with
odd "x" are development kernels.
Even though I despise Windows, I'd be happy if MS
did follow Linux' model and released patches more
often, and didn't try to take their customers
money for buggy crap while claiming it to be a
"stable" version.
It's getting quite annoying with trolls like you
who try to present the "hypocrisy" of the linux
community, while presenting opinions that are by
no means prevalent as if they were the opinions
of the whole community.
So you feel that the world should be deprived of potentially very useful code just because you don't like its author's personality?
It's not like the world is being deprived of "potentially useful code." People have been using ReiserFS for ages now, and most distributions come with either a alternative kernel compiled with ReiserFS, or ReiserFS patches to the mainline kernel already installed.
Second, it's easy to obtain said patches. It's not like there's one guy, in the middle of the Sahara, that you need to send an SASE to in order to get the source code carefully inscribed on dried clumps of sand.
I'm not defending Mr Reiser's behavior, but don't you think that the code should speak for itself? I have no idea what he is like as a person and I don't really care as long as he writes good code.
Don't you think Mr. Reiser should let the quality and/or utility of the code speak for itself, rather than putting all sorts of pressure on the kernel developers to include his code NOW NOW NOW (or, if possible, yesterday)? For a long time, the kernel developers didn't put his code into the kernel because they had different plans. They wanted to make the foundations better for all journalling filesystems. Yet, rather than acknowledge that there might be a technical reason for the lack of inclusion of his code, Hans took a fit and accused anyone and everyone of being part of a conspiracy against him.
That doesn't sound like someone who lets code quality stand on its own.
I'd be perfectly willing to let his code stand on his own - as long as HE would let his code stand on its own. The second Hans Reiser made the character of the other kernel developers an issue, his own character became an issue as well.
How do people justify two standards (apart from mind warp)?
Well, in this case, because one piece of software costs money, and people generally expect to get what they pay for. If it does not live up to their expectations of what the software should provide for that kind of money, then they will gripe, whine and complain.
Given the baseline of free software, software buyers want to see genuine value-added for the money they pay over the free solution. Their expectations have been raised so that they expect more than nothing for a price of zero (not even beginning to account for expectations raised by advertising of the product in question)
They want to see happen for computer software what has already happened for computer hardware -- cost/performance over the past couple of decades have plummeted by orders of magnitude.
-- "Provided by the management for your protection."
Re:Isn't this a bit soon?
by
NumberSyx
·
· Score: 1
Okay, there was a few bugs in 2.4, as there were bugs in every version of Windows and DOS before that, this is software after all, this happens. The difference between Windows and Linux is response time. It takes Microsoft months to fix even major security problems and minor problems can take years, if they are ever fixed at all. When they do fix problems, it tends to cause other problems, I point to WinNT SP 1-5 to prove my point. How many of those 65000+ bugs in Win2K have been fixed ? If you happen to be one of the many people who suffer from on of these bugs, don't bother call Microsoft, they will tell you this problem effects less than 2% of thier customers or that will be fixed in the next service pack and you have no way to fix the problem yourself.
It did take a long time to get from 2.2 to 2.4 as it took considerable time to get to 2.2, but I can rest easy that all the major bugs will be worked out quickly and even minor issues will be fixed soon enough and if I have to I can fix the problem myself or get someone who can. On top of all that, it costs me nothing but a little time and effort to upgrade to 2.4, were as it would cost me at least $49.95 to upgrade from Win98 to WinME as well as time and effort. There is absolutly no comparision here. Windows may win on the "Ease of use and installation" front, but looses horribly when we start to talk about stabilty, reliablity, timely bug fixes and total cost of ownership.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
--
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Re:2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z
by
Delphis
·
· Score: 1
Hmm..
2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z
2.x where x is obviously the SAME number. Like 2.2.0 stuff is intimately compatible with 2.2.18.
2.4.0 is a different x. A different MAJOR revision.
Lots of stuff DOES run under Microsoft OSs, I'm not refuting that part of the comment. But at least get your x's and y's right:>
I think it's nice to get rid of legacy software so you're not carrying the weight of its problems YEARS down the line. Hmm.. like 8.3 filenames?.. Yes, NT is a different OS than Win9x.. therefore, they dumped the legacy stuff and some things broke. It's less severe under Linux, but the principle is the same.
If you're like me and are just now starting to use reiserfs, they you might not have the tools to make, check, etc, the filesystem, and they *don't* come in the kernel patch. But seeing as it recommends that you use utils that match your version of reiserfs (3.6.25 in 2.4.1) then here are the recommended utils from namesys for 2.4.1 kernel.
Just when everyone is weary from clicking the retry button in their FTP clients to grab the BIND bug fixes along comes a new kernel...
Just as well those FTP servers are all running a reliable OS I suppose...;-)
-- UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
What about the mirrors!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Won't anyone think about the mirrors!
Re:What about the mirrors!
by
wbmccrea
·
· Score: 1
What about the Mirrors?
I was getting around 4 Mbit/s while I got it.
Re:What about the mirrors!
by
Alex+Pennace
·
· Score: 1
I think that most hackers who are saavy about the kernel know better than to download one from a mirror.
Expecially after all the virus problems with RedHat, now is not the time to risk downloading a tainted version of
the kernel [...]
That's a bad argument, kernel releases are PGP signed.
Now I'm waiting for it to be put in distros. I guess I find it annoying how some distros (Mandrake, RedHat) go crazy if you change their kernel. However, they are better for getting a desktop to JUST WORK out of the box.
It's not being 31337. It's called 'saving bandwidth'. Why download what you don't need?
Besides, if you do a 'net install you know you're getting the most recent packages. FTP install is a Good Thing.
I've installed Kernel 2.4 onto a Slack box down in the basement at home weeks ago and haven't yet even touched the machine since.
I FTPd the source from the 'net onto my desktop machine upstairs, then FTP'd it down to the machine in the basement, unpacked it, configured it, built it, and rebooted the machine from within a telnet session. It came back up, the networking continued to work, and I'm using the box (my Window Manager of choice these days is eXceed on W2K). With a fast ethernet connection to the box, there's no reason for me to ever have to go down and touch the physical hardware.
Part of the reason I don't have problems is that I don't use loadable modules for anything. That's probably what breaks Mandrake and Redhat boxes the most when people rebuild the kernel.
Huh? I've got Mandrake 7.2 and RH 6.2 systems that run just fine with the 2.4.0 kernel. I didn't have to upgrade anything on Mandrake, and RH only needed a new modutils (which I got by pulling the modutils-2.4.1 source RPM from mandrake's cooker and rebuilding).
It took almost no time to upgrade either, and they work fine.
1st Law Of Networking: Loose ends are bad, termination is good.
and to drag this out a little more i'll say that the rsync method also prevents having to make a new iso and distribute it to all the mirrors every time an update is made...
Actually Mandrake 7.2 was already set up for the new kernel. ie they used/etc/modules.conf instead of conf.modules and had the correct versions of the packages required. I was able to install 2.4.0-testx without any hassles at all... I believe you could even install the 2.4.0-testx kernels from an rpm on the extensions CD.
Re:Ooops.. MegaRAID is _still_ broken
by
sighup
·
· Score: 1
Any details? How's MegaRAID broken? I've got a few production MegaRAID boxes, but no test boxes (right now). Have you tried building MegaRAID directly into the kernel?
>Although it saddens me that his code made it into >the kernel, because of his behaviour, at least I >won't have to read any more of his bitching.
So you feel that the world should be deprived of potentially very useful code just because you don't like its author's personality? I'm not defending Mr Reiser's behavior, but don't you think that the code should speak for itself? I have no idea what he is like as a person and I don't really care as long as he writes good code.
Uh, have you read some of Linus Torvald's and Andre Hedrick's linux kernel mailing list posts? These guys are Grade "A" assholes, and thier code is just awesome.
Andre Hedrick (ide guy)is one strange cookie, here is the slashdot interview with him. Read his answers. Make any sense? Should this man be committed?
Regarding that hard drive copy protection: Choices...
by cnladd
I apologize for the open-endedness of this question, but I have to ask it anyways.:)
If this copy protection were to become mandatory, I can definately imagine the effects that it would cause. But what effects - both long and short term - do you feel this would cause?
Andre:
Sorry, I do not feel anything! If you wish to know what I THINK, then I will answer the question. The very nature of asking people how they feel about an issue allows one to wrap it in fuzzy language, and this is how we got into this mess. So THINK DAMN-IT do not FEEL, this is silicon and not flesh!
Think about all the software you own for backup -- WORTHLESS in a CPRM environment. OPEN wallets!!!!
Ever had a morning where you were not kissed and told "I love you," when the night before you SCREWED so wildly that you could not remember?
GOOD MORNING!!!!
Have fun using thier code, I know I do, and I get a real kick out of reading the kernel mailing list, too.
So did I understand you correctly, you would rather pick code to kernel based on how nice its maintainer is?
I would've rather waited to include ReiserFS in 2.6, when the kernel has been correctly designed for the optimal use of journalling filesystems.
Hans' bitching was for two reasons, both of which are crap.
Reason one: he felt that having to go get the patches put undue burden on his users. This is bunk, because most distributions now ship a kernel with the ReiserFS patches. Those that don't are the ones that cater to the more technically elite. Those that do provide update services that will upgrade your kernel source already patched. And if you're skilled enough to download fresh source and compile a new kernel, you're overqualified to download the patch from the Namesys website and patch the source you just downloaded. So "ease of access" is not a valid reason.
Reason two: he felt that being the "default" jfs on Linux would help improve his business prospects. Well, guess what? The GNU/Linux system isn't around to further anybody's specific business plan. I'd like decisions to be made for the good of the OS, not because somebody wants to sell more consulting services. So "building my business" is not a reason, either.
It saddens me that his code is in the 2.4.1 kernel because adding ReiserFS was tantamount to giving Hans Reiser his way so he'll just shut up. That's not the way things should be done.
Linus would not have included it if he did not think I was a sound technical decision.
I'm not so sure about that. From my understanding, one of the big reasons Linus included it was because "it won't break anything." That's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
It's important as it silences all the Linux-isn't-ready-for-primetime-because-it-doesn't -have-a-journaling-filesystem crap, and this filesystem will be available out of the box in mainstream distributions.
So instead we have to put up with an arrogant, childish, gloating Hans Reiser?
Andre Hedrick (ide guy)is one strange cookie, here is the slashdot interview with him. Read his answers. Make any sense? Should this man be committed?
[snip]
Andre:
Sorry, I do not feel anything! If you wish to know what I THINK, then I will answer the question. The very nature of asking people how they feel about an issue allows one to wrap it in fuzzy language, and this is how we got into this mess. So THINK DAMN-IT do not FEEL, this is silicon and not flesh!
Makes perfect sense to me. Rush Limbaugh had a similar comment on think-vs.-feel several years ago...maybe Andre Hedrick is a dittohead.:-)
Reason Three: Someone (SuSE?) promised Reiser some cash if he got his filesystem into 2.4 mainline. Since his livelyhood was at stake, he understandably got a little jumpy during the development process when his stuff wasn't being merged.
That was sort of lumped in with reason #2 above. Basically, Reiser had monetary incentive to get his filesystem into the kernel, and that superceded any technical reasons as to why it should stay out.
In reality, technical concerns should always supercede somebody else's monetary incentive. Always.
Question for y'all. I am new to Debian. Giving it a try after using nothing but RedHat.
I am in the middle of installing the Debian 2.4.0 kernel-source package which I got via the incredible apt-get. Someone recommended that I get my distro's kernel-source rather than the generic one, but it looked like all Debian did was fix a few typos.
Now I'm obviously going to go with 2.4.1 and abandon my 2.4.0 install (argh) but my question is, am I better off just using the generic kernel or should I wait for the Debian source package? Is there really much of a difference?
The year is 2001 now. The 386 was released in 1986. I think it's time we leave it behind - a kernel that's able to run on a 386 might have been a feature - but this kind of feature can turn into a limitation if it's been a feature for long enough, for dragging our feet.
If you have a 386, I don't see the idea why you can't run kernels 2.2.x. You aren't likely running 386 SMP machines. 386 motherboards don't support USB and firewire - it's all-ISA, and security patches and minor improvements keeps rolling in.
> you know according to linus' our words a large patch like ReiserFS shouldn't have made it in.
...except that he had stated earlier that ReiserFS was on the slate for 2.4.1 . So, there is a bit of a discrepancy there, but given that the ReiserFS statement was specfic and the 2.4.1 statement was general, it seems reasonable to trust the specific.
Of course, treating Linus's quotes as gospel is a bit silly, anyway. Believe it or no, it *is* possible for Fearless Leader to make self-contradictory statements, and he has certainly gone back on his own statements before.
> Another thing is that apparently 2.4 was failing to boot on i386 machines. It had something to do with the CPU's cache not being large enough i belive.
This issue has been tracked down. Of note is the fact that it affects only a very small subset of 386's. If I recall correctly from Kernel Traffic, there was a recall on those early 386's anyway.
No, you don't have to run a kernel at all. If you think a kernel is too low-ranking for you, you could run a general in stead. General Protection is fine, but has some faults. I would never trust a damn kernel myself.
Linux does follow the "release early, release often". The whole point is that you release
your development work too, not just the "stable"
versions. In this case, the entire 2.3.* series
is there only for the purpose of letting people
follow the development closely.
And no, there's no conflict between release early,
release often, and "It's ready when it's ready".
Actually, Linux is a good example here: Development
snapshots are released often through the entire
process, and even during the stable series, patches
are published, and Alan Cox even put together his
"ac" patches. New versions are released often.
On the other hand, there's no strict timetable for
when to officially designate a release "stable".
Linus tried doing that with 2.4 - indicating that
he wanted a short release cycle. Instead it indeed
ended up being a case of "it's ready when it's ready": 2.4 got delayed by months because Linus
and others wanted to make sure that it actually
worked well, instead of sticking to the indicated
schedule.
final:
- Al Viro: core file hardlink attack avoidance fix
pre12:
- Get non-cpuid Cyrix probing right (it's not a NexGen)
- Jens Axboe: cdrom tray status and queing cleanups
(etc., etc.)
Does this mean that there is only one change in 2.4.1? Or are all those changes (listed under pre12 through pre8) included in the final?
Some of the changes under pre# would affect me (APCI, AGP, r128, eepro100 updates), but the one change under final would not (as far as I can tell). I'll probably still install it, but can anyone read these change files? Are these all changes to 2.4.1, or are these just the last few change cycles?
So, if I'm running 2.4.0, only the one change would show up, right?
BTW, I just installed 2.4.1, and some of it is broken. ACPI doesn't seem to compile (missing header file?), which most people don't care about, since they aren't running a notebook made in the last year. Expect a 2.4.2 in a week or so.
The pre changes listed are 2.4.1preX changes. Everything listed on that page are things that changed from 2.4.0 to 2.4.1, so no, you'll get more than one change.
UDF is the DVD filesystem support, totally unrelated. The problem the 386s were having was related to a bug in pagetable_init(). You can read the thread here.
I noticed that 2.4.0 didn't have ip_masq_quake and all those other ip_masq_* modules. Does this mean that 2.4.x doesn't need them any more, or that they haven't been written yet?
-- The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
You can use ipchains to control the filters, NAT, etc., I believe, but iptables is the new user-space tool du jour. The page for the project is http://netfilter.kernelnotes.org/. I can't make a personal testimonial yet, I haven't had much chance to play with iptables/netfilter/2.4.x firewalling.
--
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re:yes, I am pleased, but...
by
swordgeek
·
· Score: 2
2.2.18 rocks? Super! Stick with it! There's no penalty for those who don't upgrade.
I had to go to 2.4 because I need iptables. Aside from my packet filter machine, I'll probably stick with 2.2.18, just because I've got it finely tweaked and everything works perfectly.
So here's to no "upgrade now!" thumbscrews!
--
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
You know, I thought 2.4 came out just last week. If MS were to release an OS upgrade, then, a week or two later, released a patch/hotfix/etc., there would be all sorts of discussion about how they never release the good stuff, how evil it is, etc.
When the open source community does it, they speak so highly about being able to react to bugs. It is a Good Thing.
The analogy would be better if you were talking about a Red Hat/Mandrake/Suse/... release updated the kernel packages a week after the release. Distribution makers do the QA and provide the "known good" builds.
The "hey, we've changed the kernel, and think its better now?" phase we are in? Internally, Microsoft does it too.
I was talking to an MSCE buddy of mine yesterday, and he swore up and down he is running Linux 7.1 now.
That's because people don't understand the difference between a kernel and a distribution. He's probably running RedHat 7.1 or some other distro of that version number. So your MCSE friend may be right in what he said, he's just confusing terms.
Did you read the changelog and do a "mknod/dev/ppp c 108 0"? I had the same problem with my laptop until I bothered to RTFM.
--
---
if y cn rd ths y cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmmng!
Re:Isn't this a bit soon?
by
squiggleslash
·
· Score: 2
Well, stick a BIG "it depends" on what you say above, because I think you're missing the point. In Linux, device drivers are a part of the kernel. That's why, when you compile a device driver, you need to compile it as part of a kernel, even if you intend (and it's not easy if you do this) to insmod it into some other environment.
But regardless, the kernel's device drivers are a part of the kernel. When a new version of the kernel is released, it contains, built in, source included, the latest versions of those device drivers. When device driver fixes are done, they are released as part of kernel releases. The central point, that Linux is updated once every month or two, or sometimes several times a month, because of the desire to release updated device drivers, is generally true.
As for the remaining comments, I'm trying to figure out what you're implying or believe I've said. They look like Linux advocacy, which is fine, but it's not exactly relevent. It remains the case that when Microsoft release updated device drivers, they'll release them with no apparent kernel version change. When Linux releases them, they will. As such, the absurd comments I was replying to suggesting that frequent releases of Linux are a bad thing and contrary to Microsoft's own practices are false. In Linux, version numbers include updates to device drivers. In Windows, version numbers are seperate to device drivers. --
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Isn't this a bit soon?
by
squiggleslash
·
· Score: 2
Ok, having read all the responses to this, I'm at a loss. Could someone please point out:
Which part of the above is "Funny"?
Which part advocates or opposes microkernel or monolythic kernel design?
I was making a simple point. Updated device drivers will result in new kernel releases in a monolythic environment, by definition, and wont in a microkernel/otherwise seperate device space kernel design. There is nothing either good or bad about either implied, unless someone really agrees with the notion that version numbers Must Not Be Changed.
Help me out here, it can't be that difficult to understand, can it? --
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:It's a bit different though...
by
Alex
·
· Score: 1
A week is a bit poor, I've been up 25 days now on 2.4 on my workstation. It seems to behave much better under load and in out of memory conditions.
I'm tempted to move some of my servers to it.
Alex
Re:Isn't this a bit soon?
by
IntlHarvester
·
· Score: 1
System File Protection is a hack because there are so many broken and Win9x-specific installers out there (even from Microsoft), that it's not even funny.
If Windows was working right to begin with (system DLLs are upgraded only in service packs, not by app vendor installers), there would be absolutely no need for SFP.
(SFP is nice because you don't have to wince when you see Fred's Shareware installing MFC42.DLL into your \WINNT\SYSTEM32, but Fred was just doing what Microsoft told him to do.) --
Yes, all of the changes are included in the file. the pre# just shows when it was changed. Its also useful to know what changed when if you are using the pre versions.
-- --
"So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
2.4.1:
As of 2.4.1, the kernel now conforms to the Open Naming Specification. According to the specification, any or all of the following pronunciations are considered "correct"; feel free to add your own!
LEE-nooks (early Linus' pronunciation)
LYE-nicks (early Americanized pronunication)
LIH-nucks (later American pronunciation)
RED-hat LIH-nucks (pronunication commonly used by newer Linux users)
DEBB-ee-uhn guh-NOO LIH-nucks (pronunication used by GPL zea^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hadvanced Linux users)
WINN-dohs TOO THOW-zand FIVE (pronunication used by Microsoft after the proper "behavior adjustment" and re-education)
When are these Gnome guys gonna get their act together and make their Gnome counterpart called gernel?
We can't have KDE is the only one with an ernel implementation.
(today's obligatory obscure anime reference:)
Nah - reverse the g and the n: Nergel - close enough to Nergal for me =)
Re:Ooops.. MegaRAID is _still_ broken
by
HeUnique
·
· Score: 2
Please send it to the mailing list, with a detailed report, and a log from your/var/log/messages with the part that went wrong.
Someone will look at it over there. Mailing to Linus won't help you since he got nothing to do with AMI Megatrend..
-- Hetz (Heunique)
Re:Any ext2 to reiserfs converters ?
by
HeUnique
·
· Score: 2
Oh, I (and lots of other people) wish there was such a converter. I emailed PowerQuest about adding ReiserFS support for Partition Magic - but so far, I didn't get any answer from them
-- Hetz (Heunique)
Re:People, please use the mirrors!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
I pinged it and only 50% of my packets came back, so....
Re:2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z
by
IntlHarvester
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft has claimed that in the past -- there used to be a list of DOS and Win3.1 applications that were certified to run on NT.
Notice "run" and not install and run correctly. There are still major applications (Mozilla!) that have no clue about NT's multiuser-ness and treat it just like a slightly different version of Win95. Microsoft refuses to break these applications, because they include their own products (like Office 97).
So many Win3.1 apps worked under 9x, that it easier to list the ones that didn't work.
Your point is right on -- Microsoft lives and grows by it's binary back compatibility. Linux accomplishes it's political goals through it's source compability and openness. (But to be fair, the idea of source compatibility instead of binary is much older than Linux and goes back to the roots of UNIX.) --
Funny that this guy is so confused that he is mistakenly informing people to pronounce it the WRONG way.:)
Duh. You just shit in your own nest.
It is LIN-ix. When I lived in the dorms, we had one guy that always called it the incorrect way, LYE-nix. When we finally had the heart to tell him, he killed himself.
The moral of the story is, pronounce Linux as LIN-ix, or you may shoot yourself one day.
Re:LIN-ix (short i as in "pit")
by
kilrogg
·
· Score: 1
pronounce Linux as LIN-ix
Agreed, that's the way most people say it so I say it that way too, but do most people say:
I have a sin-us cold?
or, 2 min-us 2 is 1?
No, no, and well no.
But I still say lin-ux.
Re:LIN-ix (short i as in "pit")
by
KlomDark
·
· Score: 2
I liked this comment on the poll:
"Read as an english word linux is pronounced lie nucks. Read as a finnish word linux is pronounced lee nucks. Saying lynn (like the name) ucks is blatantly wrong. But, pronounciation of a word from another language is up to the speaker, and most people who speak english can't pronounce anything at all. So, although about 63% of the posters are wrong, it's up to them what they say."
Probably the best thing to do is to realize it's a microcultural thing. People in one company will call it LyeNicks, while the company across the street the people call it Linnukz.
Instead of dorkboy saying "I cannot have a serious conversation with someone that calls it LyeNicks", he should show himself as properly educated to the fact that people pronounce it differently depending on something obscure like the phase of the moon when they first heard about Linux.
Re:LIN-ix (short i as in "pit")
by
cafelatte
·
· Score: 1
Re:still waiting for the first distro
by
solace
·
· Score: 1
suse already announced that 7.1 will included 2.4, should be out in a week or so
Is there built-in vpn support?
by
yzquxnet
·
· Score: 1
Do the 2.4.x kernels have built-in VPN masq support. I hate having to patch my older kernels to get it to route VPN properly,
Re:Keep up with the Joneses
by
gimple
·
· Score: 1
Okay, I can see why you may have modded this down, but actually Smith and Jones where advocates of open source printing presses. So, it really isn't off topic.
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
-- SIG: HUP
Re:People, please use the mirrors!
by
Punto
·
· Score: 1
Funny thing about my mirror: the mirror would be 'ftp.ar.kernel.org', for Argentina. But the actual location of the mirror is on Canada, literally the other side of the continent.
lag is 500ms with a fast cablemodem.
--
--
-- Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
I wouldn't expect to see a DRI module anytime soon. At least not one that works as well as NVidia's own 3D accelleration for XFree86 4.0.
Re:There are mirrors
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Hey Taco! How about adding goatse.cx to the lameness filter?
Re:You sure its 2.4.1??
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Are you sure you don't have a stick up your ass? Its supposed to be funny, you moron...
Re:Isn't this a bit soon?
by
Omnifarious
·
· Score: 2
Umm, I can't figure out if you're serious or trolling or ignorant.
Linux drivers can, and are updaed independently of the kernel all the time. In fact, you can unload an old driver and load in a new driver all without rebooting. Your users might not even notice. No, it's not really a 'microkernel', but it shares a lot of a microkernel's features in that regard.
Windows requires a reboot every time you loaded a driver, last time I checked. Also, drivers conflicts and incompatibilities are rampant. One of the whole points of Windows 2000 was for Microsoft to start making sure that the drivers vendors released were lots less buggy so their system wouldn't BSOD as often as it used to.
Near as I can tell, while Windows NT/2000's might be based on a microkernel, it has no effect on the system as a whole aside from the additional technical marketing buzzwords people can use to describ it.
you know according to linus' our words a large patch like ReiserFS shouldn't have made it in. He didn't want to add and large fixes, or features. just small hacky fixes.
This might be referring to MicroUDF [also called UDF], the filesystem used on DVDs [as well as other devices] and integrated into stable kernels later than 2.2.16 and 2.4.0
Actually - and I don't have a link to this - Linux said that he didn't mean ReiserFS when he said that. He automaticly assumed people knew he was going to include ReiserFS (as he made it obvious enough before).
While Microsoft isn't liable for the same reason that no software company is liable (years and years of crappy developers have made users come to *expect* buggy software) "liability" goes against the freedom of Linux. If you want Linux to remain free and democratic and all that shit, then you can't enforce product quality. That's why the LSB is such a bad idea. It forces vendors to conform and release good (or at least uniformly mediocre) products.
PS> Yea I know/. is the "I don't get subtly" capital of the world.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:People, please use the mirrors!
by
isorox
·
· Score: 1
Well, I tried getting it from my local mirror.ac.uk but it wasnt up there, so I checked out the bandwidth on kernel.org and it was less then 50% used, so I grabbed it.
Re:Any ext2 to reiserfs converters ?
by
cduffy
·
· Score: 2
You really don't have to, since reiserfs is resizable (though, for that matter, so is ext2 though only offline). Particularly easy if you have LVM and the ext2online patch applied (in which case all of the following should be possible without any disruption in service whatsoever):
Shrink your ext2 filesystem. Create a reiserfs in now-free space. Copy data over. Delete ext2 filesystem and resize reiser-based fs to fill remaining space.
Okay, done. You don't have the ext2online patches? Means you'll have to use parted or PartitionMagic for the first step... a shame, that. You aren't using LVM? You'll have to move the ext2 partition to the back of the disk as well as resizing it (something parted won't do but PartitionMagic probably will) as a reiserfs partition can only online-extend from its tail.
Still quite doable.
Re:People, please use the mirrors!
by
Astastrafal
·
· Score: 1
>How did you check the bandwidth on kernel.org?
The site's bandwidth utilisation is usually listed on its home page.
>I've never heard of a tool that does that, but
> would be interested to learn about one.
Never heard about such a thing myself.
Er, no. At least according to Linus:
by
Nailer
·
· Score: 2
Try using sndconfig next time you're on a Red Hat or Mandrake box, and listening to the sample wave:
"Hello, this is Linus (rhymes with `Guinness') Torvalds. And I pronounce Linux (rhymes with `cynics') Linux (still rhymes with `cynics')".
No, no, no! I'm on a winblows computer at school! I can't download it the instant it's out - I won't be part of the/. effect against kernel.org!
If you've read the ChangeLog, you'll notice that there's a change for almost everything. Regardless of what you use your computer for, and update will probably help you out. Remove all your 2.4-ac patches and tack on the 2.4.1 series patch, then get the next AC patch due out in five minutes (Alan Cox has a LOT of time on his hands based on how fast his patches were released when 2.4 came - as many as 2 a day!).
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
I feel for you. I too am at a school and want to d/l the new kernal but I'm stuck here at school. I wish we had CD-R at my HS like they do at the Middle School. One of these days we'll get CD-R!!
Plus at school we have a T1 and at home I have a terrible 56k.
JNS
-- You have 30 Moderator Points! Use 'em or lose 'em!
Mmmm. I envy your internet connection if you plan on slashdotting a 100Mbit internet connection with only www/ftp connections. (is slashdot even *capable* of slashdotting kernel.org???)
---
-- Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
Fully modularized code also means that in BeOS, my NVIDIA drivers are a mere untar away on any BeOS version, while in Linux, I almost invariably have to recompile the drivers. Face it, the Linux driver interface is broken. The sheer fact that NVIDIA has to go through so many hoops to release a binary driver shows just how broken it is.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:What is this "kernel"?
by
bluetoad
·
· Score: 1
My point was that the person I was replying to was wrong, the Debian version is not the same as the kernel version. If it were, then Debian would end up using the 2.3-devel kernels with their next release;)
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I was talking to an MSCE buddy of mine yesterday, and he swore up and down he is running Linux 7.1 now.
Re:You sure its 2.4.1??
by
phutureboy
·
· Score: 1
Hehe. One of my MCSE buddies is running LINE-ix 6.2. I find it difficult to have a serious conversation about it with him when he insists on pronouncing it that way.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Re:You sure its 2.4.1??
by
Zero__Kelvin
·
· Score: 1
Sounds like your "MSCE buddy" knows what he's talking about
For example, I run Linux 7.2 with a custom compiled Linux Kernel 2.4.0.3 (SMP) and sometime Linux Kernel 2.2.17, and I used to run Linux 7.1 (The Linux-Mandrake distribution, to be specific.) When one runs a given "distros" Linux one refers to the release version used by the company packaging the distribution and is referring to the Kernel and support software that ships with the distribution.
BTW - Linus Torvolds pronounces Linux as LEAN-ix as I understand it, but also explicitly states that there is no correct pronounciation !!!!!
-- Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I guess I have to give the new kenrel a run then. I wasn't sure if the 9-6 drivers supported the new kernel...I looked in the FAQ and I didn't see nothing...
-- From Zero to Hero... Starbuck Zero
Re:2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z
by
be-fan
·
· Score: 2
Then that's more or less irrelevant. a.0.X release is nearly the same as a service pack. Tons of stuff breaks during a.0.X release (such as drivers, ahem) while service packs rarely (if you're lucky, some people aren't) break anything.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I see a PPC update from Cortd for pre10. God I sure hope they got all the PPC fixs merged in. Unfortunately it's very rare when we PPC users can take a stock kernel from kernel.org and make it compile correctly with all the fixes. Maybe it's just me but it seems that Linus never waits for our fixes. They merge everyone else's crap in at the last second which almost always breaks some PPC thing. Then they release it before the PPC developers can get it fixed. It's really annoying to feel unimportant. This doesn't just affect Mac users but the RS/6000's, Amigas, embedded machines, even Tivo! Like I said, I sure hope they merged in all the PPC fixes this time.
--
Re:2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z
by
be-fan
·
· Score: 2
Except that they can. A much higher percentage of Win95 software runs on Win98 than 2.2 software runs (perfectly) on 2.4. The same is true in reverse (for the most part, discounting apps that use '98 specific APIs.) Of course, if your talking about NT and '95, you're on crack. Complaining that NT doesn't run all '95 apps is silly. They're totally different OSs.
-- A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
For your specific example. In the closed-source world of Microsoft, Sun, etc...
First of all, since the compiler is not bundled with the OS it could be released a few months after the OS. In the meantime making the beta available for people to use and test.
In fact, both companies have done this quite frequently.
Your characterization of closed-source companies while entertaining tends to ignore facts and history.
As far as the RedHat making it work better than it should... Need we remind you of that RameN Worm?:)
No there is not a double standard. Windows costs money, and is developed by a very large company with thousands of programmers who are well paid. When I buy a copy, I expect it to work the way I want it too, I also expect problems to be handled quickly and without a complication. My expectations are further raised because of the marketing that takes place, in that they should provide a product that does what they themselves say it should do. Whether or not I would get this is another topic altogether. Of course if you read the EULA, they do not garrantee it will do anything, but none the less my expectations have been set. I hold RedHat to this standard as well.
Linux is for all intents and purposes free, I have never bought an "Offical" copy, although I have to pay for the media, $2.95 from CheapBytes or $0.50 if I want to download the ISO and burn it myself. It is developed primarily by programmers in thier spare time, most do not get paid for what they contribute and certainly all the Companies developing distibutions of Linux combined do not have the resources available to the that Microsoft does. My expectations are much lower, the fact that I get a fully funtional Operating System speaks volumes about the Open Source model.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
--
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
2.4.0 was released very early in January, not "just last week".
If MS released a patch or hotfix a week after a major release, it would be because of a horiffic bug or security hole. The *reason* for the release is important.
2.4.1 adds functionality. ReiserFS is a journaling filesystem that is now in the official kernel. That's good news.
Linux has had problems with 2.x.1 releases being les stable than 2.x.0. Linus intends this not to be the case.
Producing patches often is a good thing whether it fixes a bug or adds functionality. That dosn't mean that any patch or upgrade can't simultaneously represent an embarassment for a developer. That depends entirely on the reason for the release.
-- I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Re:Double Standard! (your SIG)
by
NumberSyx
·
· Score: 1
Patti Smith first sang "Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine"
I know, I just like Billy Idol's song better, though I have been told it is blasphemey and that I should commit suicide immeadiatly so as not to pass on my obvious lack of music taste to the next generation. I have adjusted my sig accordingly.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
--
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Re:Isn't this a bit soon?
by
NumberSyx
·
· Score: 1
As a result of this, releasing updated device drivers or other updated components means releasing a "new" kernel, even though the central structure and code is unchanged.
This is incorrect, I can and have upgraded my Video card, Sound card and Network card. I downloaded, built and installed the new drivers all without rebooting the system let alone recompiling the kernel and when I install or upgrade an application, I never have had to reboot the system. Windows on the other hand has to be rebooted after installing any driver and many applications including Office 2K. This tells me whatever method Linux is using to load device drivers and software libraries is clearly better than the methods used by Windows.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
--
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
> You guys evidently haven't seen good trolls if you think this is elegant. This is such an obvious troll that it's not even amusing. Needs a much better write-up.
This is pure jealousy. The troll is rude, got #10, had 17 replies, and is scored '0: Insightful'
Sure, it is an obvious troll. Any sufficiently non-obvious troll is indistinguishable from karma-whoring. I tend to like obvious trolls when they are elegant. And, IMHO, this one is.
Re:Troll Fugue in B# Major
by
hammock
·
· Score: 1
It's about making smart consumer decisions. You have a choice on whether you should support companies that are doing "the wrong thing"
Examples include:
Anything winmodem - You should refuse to buy, or sell these. If they come in an OEM system, demand that it be replaced with a real modem, or buy another system that has a real modem.
Video cards that have only closed source binary drivers that *still* don't work properly with SMP systems.
CPU's with serial numbers
Hard disks that blow off the CRC check in UDMA mode, bye bye data.
Monopolistic companies.
example:
Does Microsoft Space Cadet Table (a mission critical app) run on Linux?
Instead ask "Is there some other mission critical app that runs on Linux that is as fun as, and perhaps more fun than Space Cadet Table?"
It's not _that_ hard, it just requires that the consumer makes a sound decision.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9810/09/nt5.idg/ I'm not sure if it meets your definition of a "fucking" source, but here's an article from CNN in 1998 that discusses in passing how NT 5 was supposed to ship in 1997.
--Shoeboy
Re:Isn't this a bit soon?
by
autocracy
·
· Score: 3
'Cause if you don't release it officially, you'd never get it tested. Bet you didn't know M$ has about a million different versions of Win95 (and 98 too - don't forget Service packs on top of THAT)!
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
If MS were to release an OS upgrade, then, a week or two later, released a patch/hotfix/etc., there would be all sorts of discussion about how they never release the good stuff, how evil it is, etc.
Would it make you happier if they just released a.diff and called it "Linux 2.4.0 Plus"?:-)
It's free (as was 2.4.0). It's got new features (e.g. ReiserFS). There's no marketing department pushing people to upgrade from the 2.2.x kernels. And besides all that, the "newest (i.e. development) kernel" is constantly available, not just officially sanctioned "service packs". And, to me, there's a big difference between "You know that program you just paid $500 for? You need Service Pack 1 for it or [whatever] won't work" and "You know that thing you found for free on the internet a month ago? There's an also-free patch for it if you've been having a problem with [whatever]"
Mind you, I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't quite "get" the apparent hostility in the message...
--- "They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Release early and often sucks when you pay big bucks for each release
The current status of bugs and features is well known, documented and available
This quick feedback is the result of a suddenly increased user (i.e., debugger) base and is part of the open source model. These same fixes may have taken months with out the x.0 relase
What's the big deal with all the new file systems?
by
deathcubek
·
· Score: 1
What's the big deal with reiserfs, devfs, and the shared memory file systems? Are they valid for kernel proper? And what is the purpose for the shared memory stuff? I've read a little about journaling file systems, they sound neat. And I don't think I fully understand the purpose of devfs, but why the new fstab entry for shm?
--
New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract ideas, but in the fight for daily bread --Rudolf Rocke
Well, look at the bright side...
by
11thangel
·
· Score: 2
The mirrors won't be overflowing because half the linux community is at the Linux World Expo in NYC for the next few days. Too bad I'm stuck in !@#%$%$!#!@#$ school, otherwise I'd be using my ticket and be on my way there right now =(
That would be true if it were a compiler error. However, fatal internal errors should not arise, even on code deemed incorrect by that compiler. They should just generate an error message, describing the syntax in the code it didn't like.
When the compiler explodes, leaving pasta all over the walls, there is clearly a glitch that wasn't trapped.
-- It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Microsoft would do this precisely because of mo
by
Rares+Marian
·
· Score: 1
I honestly believe that public ownership of stocks coupled with the hero worship can turn capitalist ideals into communist reality.
-- The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I was going to try this, but both http://gnu.gcc.org/ and the Changes doc in the kernel source say this is bad juju.
The GCC 2.96/2.97 tree isn't meant for these kinds of things anyway, since the binaries it makes aren't forward or backward compatible with other GCC releases.
--
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
But, yeah, you're right, bugs -are- going to crop up in snapshots. That's natural. That's why it's in CVS and not a final release.
On the other hand, IMHO, if you're on the leading edge, you're going to want to know what other leading edges yours is compatiable with. It's less stressing and more knowing the lay of the land.
-- It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Re:Signature on kernel invalid??
by
gregbaker
·
· Score: 2
I got a good signature on linux-2.4.1.tar.bz2 that I downloaded earlier today. I can't verify the tar.gz signature since I don't have the file.
Certainly their signing isn't totally bad. I'd suggest you try downloading from a different mirror and see if it comes out clean. You might also want to check your gpg version--I have 1.0.4.
You obviously don't understand how Linux as an OS is developed...
Linux itself is just the kernel - there's many, many more components, such as the C libraries, system utils, shells, X, etc., all of which are developed largely independently. Because of the open-source development idea of 'release early, release often' many small, incremental releases of these components are made all the time. Typically these are just evolutionary changes, not 'patches' for critical bugs or flaws, and their existance doesn't invalidate use of earlier versions - ie: there's normally no burning reasons why any given upgrade is necessary. This is the kind of development that would be happening at M$ as well, just underneath their veil of secrecy, so you never see all the builds of all the different M$ OS components that happen.
Linux as an OS comes from a distribution vender, like Debian, where they take a snapshot of the state of all of these components at some time and build a complete OS from it. When you get a distro, you're guaranteed to get an integrated, complete, secure system, with security/critical bug fixes if such bugs ever become apparent. They don't go include all the latest versions of everything - typically they're at least a few months behind the cutting edge, to ensure their system as a whole can be certified stable.
Re:Isn't this a bit soon?
by
squiggleslash
·
· Score: 2
No, my comment is completely correct. Releasing new versions of the device drivers in the kernel means releasing new kernels. The fact you can take a 2.2.18 driver and load it into your 2.2.8 kernel doesn't change how device drivers are released.
I can't understand why people have such a problem with the concept. I've had 5 replies now to my posting by people who don't understand that device drivers are part of the Linux kernel. I suggest that those still having problems with the concept go read the change logs. If releasing updates to device drivers wasn't part of releasing new kernel versions, you wouldn't see anything about device drivers in those change logs now would you?
Well, would you?
Incidentally, video card device drivers are not usually part of Linux. That's a FWIW. Usually the support is via XFree86 instead.
But for the umpteemph time: Go read the original article. Now read mine. Now see how it explains why Windows is updated just as often as Linux, only because of the different structural differences, the updates to Linux are just more "obvious". --
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
It doesn't appear in the menuconfig, but appears in the xconfig. The code seems to be there.
-- clancey
Re:People, please use the mirrors!
by
Trepidity
·
· Score: 2
Any particular reason the kernel distribution system still relies exclusively on manual selection of mirrors by hostname? What's wrong with an automated load-balancing setup?
Not really... the 2.2 branch hasn't even reached 2.2.20 yet, and it's been really stable for a while. basically, among "stable" (even middle number) kernels, you have to go by reputation (or do some heavy testing yourself, if you have the time and resources). there have been cases where a stable revision (within the 2.2 branch, or earlier within the 2.0 one) was worse than the previous one. in the 2.2 branch, 2.2.5 was already quite stable. my feeling with 2.4 is that it has been handled better than 2.2; I wouldn't be surprised to see something like 2.4.2 shipped by major distributions and widely deployed.
Re:It's a bit different though...
by
Kelledin
·
· Score: 1
OT: in case you want to try Win2K again...
There's a reghack-NOT-patch for your particular scenario. I had similar problems under Win2K until I applied this fix--crashed every few hours, especially in 3D games. It's chipset independent--happens with VIA, SiS, ALI, AMD, you name it. I applied this fix, and Win2K now actually gets uptime comparable to WinNT. That's not saying much, I know...
Interesting that it only happens with Win2K. Says something about that O/S...like maybe it was rushed out of the door? Not like that's anything new from MS.
Whistler is going to be awesome, the animated office assistant is BUILT IN!!
intensebeta used to have screenshots, but Microsoft lawyers made them pull all of them.
One shot had the user using the "search" function to find a file on the hard disk, and an animated yellow dog popped up to offer "suggestions".
I will not be using Whistler ever.
Does the fact that Microsoft took the Windows 2000 Team to Whistler/Blackcomb in British Columbia have anything to do with the beta name?
Re:Its about damned time.
by
mikeplokta
·
· Score: 2
I'd far rather wait until it's ready than have incomplete and buggy releases rushed out to meet a predetermined schedule, which is what those "professional" software houses do far too frequently. Not having a rigid schedule is one of the benefits of open source, not a liability.
I should know. I'm one of the conspirators that
started egcs.
The egcs and FSF gcc projects merged in April
1999, and put out the first combined release
(2.95) at the end of July 1999.
The GCC (not EGCS) snapshots represent ongoing development and
occasionally something breaks. Please report
such things, but don't stress about it; you
should expect to find bugs in the snapshots.
Re:Signature on kernel invalid??
by
smyle
·
· Score: 1
Sounds like somebody's been tampering with your BIND.:-)
--
--
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
There is accelerated support for the GeForce2 in Xfree86-4.0.2. Also a new.9.6 version of the drivers came out pretty recently from NVidia and I was able to get them working. I wasn't with.9.5 due to incompatibilities with my AGP bus.
Don't hold me to this, but if you download the cvs of Xfree86 there is most likely a dri module for the GeForce2 by now (since they got the accelerated server, I bet they are workin on the dri module in due course).
Yep. I find this one very elegant. Full of shit inside, with a nice formal wrapping around.
I don't think he'll get the hordes, because refuting it is too difficult. Basically, most points he make are sort-of right, from which he draws flawed conclusions. A very nice one, indeed.
Although I'm sure this thread is officially "dead"
The fact that NVIDIA has to go through so many hoops is to get them to release source code to it - if they "played by the rules", then, like the Radeon, they wouldn't have to go through these hoops, in fact, they would be in the operating system that people use. Stunning fact that really. And they might actually get fixed too!
That's Microsoft Certified, but I use Linux and Mac OS X throughout the day as well. Not all MCSEs are MS'centric. Some just need it (actually, the study, not the testing and certification) for the job they're doing at the time.
-- Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
Re:Signature on kernel invalid??
by
snowbike
·
· Score: 1
I agree.. On the gz version I get:
gpg --verify linux-2.4.1.tar.gz.sign linux-2.4.1.tar.gz
gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jan 2001 12:56:09 AM MST using DSA key ID 517D0F0E
gpg: BAD signature from "Linux Kernel Archives Verification Key "
While for the bz2 version I get:
gpg --verify linux-2.4.1.tar.bz2.sign linux-2.4.1.tar.bz2
gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jan 2001 01:02:44 AM MST using DSA key ID 517D0F0E
gpg: Good signature from "Linux Kernel Archives Verification Key "
I had the same problem with ppp with 2.4.0 (ive used linux since 2.0.31, and yes i also know how to install pppd and a new kernel:)) 2.4.1 gave me no problems with pppd, so that appears to be fixed
This morning we found out that an important RH6 server has been hacked. A lot of programs have been replaced by hacked versions: ls,ps,ssh,sshd,netstat etc. In order to be sure that everything is as it should, we have to reinstall. With ReiserFS, it seems...
Signature on kernel invalid??
by
iamsure
·
· Score: 3
I have now downloaded from ftp.us.kernel.org, and from ftp.kernel.org.
Windows 95, followed by Windows 95 B (OSR2?), Followed by 95 C...
Win NT SP 1 through 6
Windows 98 (it's self) followed by Win98 SE (Second Edition)
Besides the fact that a 2.3.x was available every few weeks... In case your memory is very short, there was a 2.0.1 release soon after 2.0.0, and a 2.2.1 release soon after 2.2.0.
So much for Torvalds saying "We will only release it when it's ready". Looks like Microsoft aren't the only ones who can rush a buggy product into release.
4 *weeks* for a point update?
-- "Life is like a sewer - what you get out of it depends on what you put into it" - Tom Lehrer
Re:Its about damned time.
by
topher1kenobe
·
· Score: 1
How long did it take for NT4 to move to win2000?
How long from Mac system 7 to 8? to 9? to X?
Linux moves along very nicely.
--
yadda
Re:Isn't this a bit soon?
by
halbritt
·
· Score: 1
I believe Win2k is mostly a microkernel. If I remember correctly, the GDI was moved into the kernel for Win2k to improve performance.
Re:2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z
by
NumberSyx
·
· Score: 1
Most binary applications for Windows 3.1 still work with Windows 2000 (and everything in between).
You are so wrong here, I work in Tech Support on the phones and I can tell you 30% + of our customers are calling in asking to swap WinME for Win98 because some or all of thier software no longer works and to make matters worse, thier bigger, better and faster machines perform worse when using WinME then when they "Downgraded" to Win98.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
--
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
For once the mirrors seem to have had enough time to get the files. Kernel.org is already painfully slow, giving me a measly 20k/sec. If you're in Europe, try the Funet mirror. I got a decent 320k/sec from there, entire download took about a minute (and I'm not talking about the patch file).
That's how I've pronounced it for the last 6 years. I find it difficult to have a conversation with these newbies who insist on calling it LIN-ix.
Linux means LINus's UniX. In his original tongue, Linus pronounces it like Lee-nukes. Properly 'americanized', it is LYE-NIX/Line-ix.
There's a lot of Linux newbies out there that think that the correct pronounciation IS LINN-IX. Incorrect: Lennox makes air conditioners and refridgerators.
Funny that this guy is so confused that he is mistakenly informing people to pronounce it the WRONG way.:)
-- --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Re:It's a bit different though...
by
Eil
·
· Score: 2
I have a similar system and 2.4.0 worked great. The slight boost in kernel performance combined with reiserfs patch makes this Athlon box cook.
But my PII266 laptop is quite another story. 2.4.0 wouldn't detect the pcmcia network card, sound would not work AT ALL (despite it being a 100% SB clone), and the weirdest thing by far was the fact that I would find my BIOS settings cleared every time I rebooted. And this was on a (fairly standard) mobile 440BX chipset. I had to revert to 2.2.18 and everything's been fine since.
So, I think that I have to concur with people who warned folks like me not to upgrade to 2.4 unless they had a good reason to.:P
The module loader is still broken. I don't know about you guys but I have to put all my modules in/lib/modules/2.4.x/misc - then run depmod -a in order for the stupid thing to see the modules.
Is it fixed in 2.4.1? I use 2.4.0-test12 and it doesn't work.
Thx
-- Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
Make sure your modutils is up to date. I'm using 2.3.21 and it's working just fine.
Re:As far as I can see ...
by
EllisDees
·
· Score: 1
Update your tools!
-- --
Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
because open source is about choice
by
Eil
·
· Score: 2
Because automatically directing to a server based on location tends to take away people's choices. (This can be worked around, but I'm referring to what is common practice these days.) What happens when the mirror is not up to date? Or the page is gone (404'd)? Or the server is down?
I personally like to select my own mirrors so that I can choose who I download from. In other words, I will almost always choose the server of a for-profit corporate entity than that of a university or non-profit organization when downloading something as large as a kernel tarball.
Plus, the people who run the kernel.org page reason that anyone downloading and building their own kernels ought to be smart enough to figure out to get to a mirror.
Re:because open source is about choice
by
Trepidity
·
· Score: 2
Well, you can leave the hostnames so people can manually choose "ftp.au.kernel.org" if they so wish, but set it up so the generic ftp.kernel.org load-balances to the nearest mirror (for those who decide not to pick a mirror themselves).
Of course I suppose if they can handle all these requests piling up on the main ftp.kernel.org site then that's their business...
Re:Isn't this a bit soon?
by
squiggleslash
·
· Score: 3
Er, no. Windows is a very modular system (both "Old Windows", ie 3.1 - Me, and "Modern Windows", NT-2000, the latter family being based on something that was originally a microkernel) As a result, minor changes, such as device drivers, which are released all the time, have no effect on the kernel version number.
Linux is a monolythic kernel. This means that low level system components such as device drivers are part of the kernel (even if they're loaded seperately, such as with modules.) As a result of this, releasing updated device drivers or other updated components means releasing a "new" kernel, even though the central structure and code is unchanged.
New device drivers are released for Windows on a periodic basis, and other low level components are often changed without the user even knowing - popular applications from IE to Office regularly "update" the user's operating system to whatever was latest at the time that product was released.
The fact that the version number of Windows doesn't change doesn't mean it doesn't change just as regularly, if not more often. --
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Right right right,
and professional houses ship things late all the time too, NT 5 was supposed to ship in '97.
But I think some criticism of the slowness of kernel updates is self inflicted.
Don't you recall the heady days of 1998 when all the linux advocates were boasting about the speed of releases and proclaiming open source as a magic bullet that would lead to instant release and completely bug free code?
I think that the linux community is now suffering from a backlash brough on by having had too many advocates who were assholes, see Nick Petreley for a good example.
If you don't want to face heavy bitter criticism, don't make outrageous claims.
And for the love of God, read the linux-advocacy-howto.
--Shoeboy
Indeed! I vote for a new release every day! (and a -testN version every hour or so:)
Re:2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z
by
matty
·
· Score: 1
A much higher percentage of Win95 software runs on Win98 than 2.2 software runs (perfectly) on 2.4.
Prove it. Please name 3 examples of programs (preferably ones that are at least fairly widely used) that run perfectly under 2.2 that have any issues under 2.4.
Accusation without documentation is nothing more than lazy trolling.
...if linux had something that worked as nicely as windowsupdate.com...
It does. It's called Debian. I'm being totally serious, not sarcastic.
apt is the package tool for Debian and nothing compares. Windows Update is admittedly quite nice, but I updated my boss's Win98SE machine the other day and then it wouldn't boot. After 3 days of hell trying to re-install and fussing with finding the right Product ID numbers etc. we finally have him back up and running.
This has never happened to me in 3 plus years of using Debian.
good kernal install instructions
by
blues36
·
· Score: 1
Hey, where is a good place for a linux wanna be like myself to get good instruction on how to upgrade my kernal to 2.4?
Re:good kernal install instructions
by
Ankou
·
· Score: 1
http://www.thedukeofurl.org/reviews/misc/kernel222 4/5.shtml
try that, should be easy to figure out....
Re:good kernal install instructions
by
phantumstranger
·
· Score: 2
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Kernel-HOWTO.html
-- "From of old, there are not lacking things that have attained Oneness." - Lao Tzu
I recognize that, when I started this thread, it may have come across as a troll. This was not my intent, and I apolgize to those who felt this was the case.
I did know that 2.even were "production" releases; 2.odd, development. I assumed that 2.x.y was a patch, a service pack. I assumed a.x upgrade (from, say, 2.2 to 2.4) was a major change. I remember going to 2.0 meant that a lot of libraries had to be recompiled, and had the same impression when I tried 2.2. I assumed 2.4.1 would be the first major patchset to the kernel--as opposed to downloading a major bunch of source to build out a new kernel, a smaller patch could be applied. It was pointed out that there was a bit more going (functionality, etc.) on which I was not aware of. mea maximu culpa. The same has happened with NT service packs, though not as obvoiusly.
Some have pointed out my 2.4 release date estimate was off--sorry. This year has just flown!
I think, if I do say so myself, that this was an insightful thread for me. What did I learn? First, the fact that it is free can matter. I had a hard time believing that, but I see how making a ship date can have an impact.
I think, one lesson I could also offer: all the Linux advocate rhetoric that goes around leaves an impression of arrogance. One point that always comes out in materials praising Linux is that quick turn around of patches was a plus. "You have the code--you can even create the patch yourself" almost seems to be the credo of its fans.
At the same time, any time a patch or service pack for Windows NT comes out, I have seen more than a few articals, here and elsewhere, that comment on the fact that a patch was required, etc. It leaves many with the impression I had, that of a double standard.
Why am I pointing this out? Until today, the logic behind distinction was never clear to me. It was always "Linux does it: good--it's free. MS does it--bad! They charge." Now, while I don't necessarily agree with it, I understand it better.
Re:Ooops.. MegaRAID is _still_ broken
by
JamesGreenhalgh
·
· Score: 1
Oh - this is the fun part. Someone has had some fun with that kernel module between 2.4.0-test9 and 2.4.0. If you look at the driver version, it hasn't actually changed - but the code _has_. This isn't AMIs fault at all, unless they sent the totally broken and nonworking version to the kernel maintainers. Unlikely. The fix seems to be either a) copy in megaraid.c from a test kernel, or b) download the latest megaraid.c from AMI, and just copy the file over the top.
Maybe I'm laying the blame in the wrong direction, but it really looks like someone tinkered with an already working driver, and didn't bother to mention it in the comments at the top of the file.
Which was nice.
--
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
Re:Ooops.. MegaRAID is _still_ broken
by
JamesGreenhalgh
·
· Score: 1
It affects modular or kernel build, since they both use the same.c file, and hence contain the same bug;-)
Yes, I did test this before I went delving into the code.
"I think this is why people are suspicious of open source - it has no responsibility, and no liability, so it can afford to release what was, evidently, not the finished article...
...A commercial company like Microsoft wouldn't do this because they have the financial responsibility of selling their goods."
really now?
-- "From of old, there are not lacking things that have attained Oneness." - Lao Tzu
Re:Ooops.. MegaRAID is _still_ broken
by
JamesGreenhalgh
·
· Score: 1
Yeah well - I just mailed him because that's what t says to do if there isn't anyone appropriate listed in the MAINTAINERS file;-)
Which is the appropriate mailing list for this? I had wanted to just report it without having to subscribe to something and being spammed to hell and back. It's a really easy fix, just use a nonbroken version.
MS doesn't need a working product to sell their goods. Trust me. I've used all but 3 of their OSs... (2000, Dos 2 and Dos 1. ME doesn't count...:-)
I've been using 2.4 to some considerable benefit (my APM now works right) and no detriment for some time now. I think the idea that 2.4.1 implies the inadequacy of 2.4 is wrong, or at least oversimplified... 2.4.1, if you read the changefile, largely works on the more experimental aspects (DevFS, LVM, J*-FS); Actually, I heard it suggested that the VM handling went downhill in certain situations... I don't think I beleive it, though...
What is this mysterious "kernel" package I keep hearing about? Have we finally come into the new world order where all operating systems run on one kernel that does not need a name? God bless America, I knew we'd standardize someday.
Note: this post is sarcastic, just in case you're wondering.
Re:2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z
by
Quintus
·
· Score: 1
... Which are numbered, distributed, and maintained alongside the kernel. They' pratically, *are* part of the kernel, onw which just happens to run in userspace. Please. Give us some real user-level apps... (If, of course, you can...)
To me, 2.4.2 sounds more like a band. Heavy industry stuff, perfect for clearing your mind when hacking away:)
Re:yes, I am pleased, but...
by
tristan+f.
·
· Score: 1
Your last four lines are nearly incoherent. Might you please rephrase what you were trying to say? Not a flame, an honest request...
-- Hi, I'm a pretentious cock who will make some gay comment about ignoring AC posts here.
Troll Fugue in B# Major
by
Rares+Marian
·
· Score: 1
Wait now slow down, you gotta build it up to a climax.
The counterpoint in disagreement and in FUD, well that was just delicious.
However for those confused I must explain.
Linux is as modular as makes sense. If I need a new driver I untar the driver files and compile.
No reloading of the OS, no reboot no recompile of the kernel.
The reason drivers are in the kernel tree though separate, is because they're built by the Linux developers. That mneans the code is optimized on a level most compilers can't touch: the basic interface to the kernel.
Fully modularized code leads to bloat, conflicts between similar drivers from different companies, a lot of unnecessary bookkeeping exercises while drivers operate, LOSS of performance.
Thank you.
-- The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I read linuxtoday.com that the DMA is now disabled by default with VIA chipsets because it's not working properly. I have an Abit KT7 (via kt133 chipset) and it seems to be working ok, except I get a LOT of "VFS: Disk change detected on device ide1(22,0)" and " dma_intr: status=0x51 { DriveReady SeekComplete Error }" messages.
The drive is still MUCH faster than with DMA disabled in the kernel. Anyone have any more details?
Re:VIA chipset
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
It's not all VIA chipsets, just the vast majority of them (and it's VIA's fault - they (a) produced buggy chipsets and (b) made most of their different chipsets identify as the same when queried )
A commercial company like Microsoft wouldn't do this because they have the financial responsibility of selling their goods.
Microsoft doesn't need to worry about financial responsibility. They have a monopoly. People will buy their products because they have no choice. They get money on almost ever PC sold in the United States and I bet the same is true overseas through their OEM deals. So whether you know it or not you most likely paid microsoft money for software you don't necessarily use.
And they call people who download warez pirates...
Just goes to show you that theft can be made part of a legally binding agreement and that the extremely cunning and intelligent people like Bill Gates can exploit the law to make money.
"...the financial responsibility of selling their goods."
duh
I didn't know we were into that kind of redundancy.
In all honesty, I'm really thinking this post was intended to be a joke, but...
-- "From of old, there are not lacking things that have attained Oneness." - Lao Tzu
2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z
by
Rares+Marian
·
· Score: 1
Microsoft cannot claim that at all.
-- The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Re:2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z
by
Schnedt+Microne
·
· Score: 1
Most binary applications for Windows 3.1 still work with Windows 2000 (and everything in between).
Microsoft doesn't have to claim that. It's intuitively obvious.
Meanwhile Open Source zealots view the absence of a Linux ABI as a virtue. (it forces people to release the source because otherwise everything breaks twice a year).
-- Hay thar.
Re:Its about damned time.
by
nels_tomlinson
·
· Score: 5
I'm sure that the post this answers was intended as irony, but for just in case some newcomer is reading this: when the 2.4.0 kernel was released, there had been people running it for many months, sometimes for many months without rebooting. One of the wonders of opensource is that you don't have to wait for the release, and so the release can happen when the product is ready, not when the business plan calls for it.
For the other side of this, consider Redhat 7.x. Their business plan called for a release when the compiler they wanted wasn't ready. In the closed-source paradigm, they would have called it ready and shipped bugs. Since the compiler is GPL'd they had to explicitly ship a beta compiler, and we got some fair warning about those bugs which we wouldn't have gotten from Microsoft or Sun. By the way, Redhat has done a wonderful job of making that work far better than it should, to judge by the reports of people who have been using it. In the usual closed-source, proprietary course of events, a closed source vendor such as Sun or MS would have denied the bugs, threatened customers to try to hush things up, and the folks who laid out big bucks for the bugs would have had to pay for an upgrade.
How is Linux ever to become a commercial success/serious platform if development takes years? Same way it's been getting there all along, I guess, by being so much better than the stuff that's rushed out the door to keep the marketing department happy.
Microsoft would do this precisely because of money
by
Rares+Marian
·
· Score: 1
A commercial company like Microsoft would do this because their market desires upgrades just as Linuxers do. They are frothing at the mouth to pay Microsoft.
Paying Microsoft has the following benefits:
1. You are in the presence of unearned fame when you use their software.
2. Unearned fame is the staple of many industries. It's a basic fact of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, AOLTimerica.
3. Unearned fame means progress.
4. Therefore by association you have progressed.
5. Even Karl Marx agrees with #4.
Thank you.
-- The message on the other side of this sig is false.
You're missing the point of the Linux kernel. The intent of the kernel developers and Linus himself is to make a good kernel. They then use that kernel. We should all be greatful that they allow us to use their kernel.
If companys depend on the use of the Linux kernel and want something changed about it, they should begin developing for it themselves. Companys are no different than hackers in this respect. As such, the "professionalised" development system you envision can come about by companies doing their own development
Ooops.. MegaRAID is _still_ broken
by
JamesGreenhalgh
·
· Score: 2
2.4.0-test9: works
2.4.0: broken.
2.4.1: still broken.
Just a little bit of a problem for people who sensibly are using a megaraid card for their root filesystem.
I just mailed Linus...
--
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
Re:Its about damned time.
by
TheOutlawTorn
·
· Score: 1
Commercial companies make damn sure their products are out on time
???????????
Please enlighten us by providing us the names of these esteemed companies, I'm eager to purchase software from them.
--
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
I don't know if it's all the advocates fault. It hink it may play more into the whole open source methodology from it days back as a grass roots effort. Spin, spin, spin, worse than politicians was the name of the game. Now that the methodology has stabilized somewhat Open Source fundamentals and methodology are being hit with the same issues and problems that BIGCO software development shop is hit with. Poor project management, over zealous targets, too much release functionality and too little testing. Too bad that most of the benefit of participating with open source projects is now lost and the "pirate ship" mentality is being lost. Most open source efforts that are widely seen via the press, like the 2.4.1 release is being tarnished by the same poor management practices that tarnish mainstream products like those from Microsoft to use your example.
Did I just lump the open source management community into the same bucket as Microsoft? Guess I did. Around/. I know that's quite a politically incorrect thing to do, but it is accurate. Software development problems are software development problems, regardless of the passion of the developers. Open Source management needs to wake up and smell the coffee or the open source projects like this will all get the reputation of untested, underdeveloped hackware.
--
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
It's a beautiful day...
by
wunderhorn1
·
· Score: 1
Improved support for my mobo, video card and sound card!
Thanks, guys.
-- Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
You know, I thought 2.4 came out just last week. If MS were to release an OS upgrade, then, a week or two later, released a patch/hotfix/etc., there would be all sorts of discussion about how they never release the good stuff, how evil it is, etc.
When the open source community does it, they speak so highly about being able to react to bugs. It is a Good Thing.
I think that either you need to take the stance that producing patches rapidly and often is a good thing, or an indicator of the software being bad in the first place, be it Windows or Linux or other. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!
But you can't apply a general rule like that to all situations... Sometimes releasing a patch shortly after the last release is a good thing, and sometimes it's an indicator of the earlier release being bad.
Frankly, 2.4.0 is quite stable for me. However, 2.4.1 adds some functionality that I want, therefore I consider this quick release, a good thing.
It's a fair comment, with an element of truth in it.
However, 2.4.0 was the major Linux oddity. True open sourcers follow the creed 'Release Early, Release Often' (RERO). Linus probably deservedly got a lot of flak for the long time delay between 2.2 and 2.4. In the end I think 2.4.0 got released just in order to try and impose a 'feature freeze' and stop various developers trying to get their new whiz bang feature in before the shutters came down.
There is a conflict between RERO and another Open Source aphorism which is 'Its Ready when Its Ready', which means that we as a community don't like to give out release timetables of longer than a few weeks; in other words we try not to speak of vapourware.
I have no objection to rapid patches, which is not something MS is known for, although thankfully MS quality appears to be improving with the latest version of IE and Windows 2K.
--
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
You can have it both ways, because Windows and Free Software have different development models.
A GNU/Linux kernel upgrade is a different beast than a Service Pack. An SP often breaks existing software without warning, or changes functionality. A new kernel does all these things, and sometimes more, but its part of a (somewhat) known development path, and its largely an optional thing. I have machines running 2.0.36 happily, and 2.2.18 as well. Since all machines in question are uniprocessor and have fully functioning hardware drivers, I have no need go to 2.4. I'll wait until there's a need or maybe I just want to play around. The same cannot be said of SP's which often roll up critical security fixes and performance hacks.
Now, I'll agree to statements about the pace of kernel development being... off (patches every other day for a week after months between patches?) but for the most part, you're comparing apples and oranges.
-- ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
I think it would be great if MS released a new version of the OS and had all the bugs fixed in a week. I'd want the patch to be free and not to generate a whole bunch of new bugs, though.
Releasing a new kernel version means that it will be tried on hardware that the developers don't have, even in the case of MicroSoft, so there's always a reasonable chance that some bug will emerge that couldn't have been anticipated. These bugs will never be discovered without a general release of an official stable version, since the people with the obscure hardware won't try anything else. But they should be fixed quickly once they're found.
MicroSoft service packs tend to include not only the fix for the major bug they're dealing with but also changes to the user interface and changes that break other people's software and make you upgrade your microsoft programs. Linux 2.4.1 will probably not break anything that worked under 2.4.0; at least, that was the idea for whether patches should be included.
If I had any mod points left, I'd give you one. However, let me take a slightly different POV just for the sake of discussion.
The OS philosophy is different than the MS philosophy. The MS philosophy is that of a traditional (closed) software shop. Consumers expect that when the doors open and a new product is released, that it be "good" and usable in all ways. We don't want to have to keep updating, patching, and fixing it. Isn't that what they were doing behind those closed doors, after all? In the OS world, everything's open for peer review. We know exactly how the process is coming along, and can participate in it. We don't have to wait for "perfection" because we understand that everything is just another step in the process. In fact, waiting for the "finished product" would mean waiting forever, because there's always one more feature or one more performance tweak to get in.
What I'm aiming at here is that the MS's of the world release products, but the OS world releases features. It's simply the difference in the philosophy of development between the two.
I've not checked 2.4.1 yet, but many of the AC releases and -pre releases will NOT compile under PGCC or the EGCS CVS snapshots. Something -very- subtle has changed that will cause internal errors in these specific compilers.
("Stable" EGCS releases are fine. CVS snapshots older than 2-3 weeks ago seem to work, also, but no guarantee that the binaries'll actually do anything useful.)
I've reported the bug to the EGCS developers, as internal errors are definitely a compiler bug, EVEN IF it's also a kernel bug.
Having written all this, I'm now wondering if I'm the only Slashdotian insane enough to use bleeding-edge software compiled with other bleeding-edge software on production machines...
-- It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
-- xcyber
""""""Complexity for the sake of complexity is not a solution,
neither is simplicity for the sake of simplicity
It's a bit different though...
by
Jerky+McNaughty
·
· Score: 2
2.4.1 includes new features, like a journalling filesystem, not just fixes for existing stuff. Also, 2.4 (and 2.2) works a HELL of a lot better on my hardware (ASUS A7V + Athlon + GeForce 2 GTS) than Windows 2000 did (which would lockup hard within an hour, every time). I had to install new drivers for everything plus service pack 1 to even get it remotely stable. Of course, on the same hardware, I can run repeating concurrent kernel compiles with -j4 and not see a single crash for a week.
Plus, I didn't even have to pay for Linux.
Re:2.4.1 is *NOT* DEVELOPMENT
by
YoungHack
·
· Score: 1
Hello, you are confusing the 2.3.x series here.
Kernel 2.4.x are definitely not development
according to the usual model.
Re:Isn't this a bit soon?
by
KilobyteKnight
·
· Score: 1
- popular applications from IE to Office regularly "update" the user's operating system to whatever was latest at the time that product was released.
So, if you install Office 97 on Windows 2000 does that give you Windows 1997?
-- When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Any ext2 to reiserfs converters ?
by
Hall
·
· Score: 1
Subject says it all... then again, I've got enough free space and Partition Magic that I could divide up my existing ext2 partition and format it as reiser.
People, please use the mirrors!
by
phaze3000
·
· Score: 5
ppp still doesn't work on my laptop using a >2.4 kernel (i *know* how to compile it, thanks.)
my network card is still unrecognized
my sound chip (Maestro2E) start whizzing when the laptop becomes hotter than usual...
I don't have some free space to reiserfs-ize my root
and...
my 2.2.18 rocks damn' well...:-)
Why should I change ?
To discover the evil of technological inflation ?
No, thanks, I am not missing the windows community ? --
2.4.1 is for the thrillseekers and developers, 2.4.2 will be the next update intended for end users.
Wrong. 2.4.x is the stable kernel series. The even/odd rule only applies to the first minor number, not to the minor minor. All 2.3.x are devel and all 2.4.x are stable.
Slashdot Mirror
No, he's describing a problem (wayward DLL updates by applications) that has been largely solved in Windows 2000. Apps aren't allowed to arbitrarily update system libraries. A whole library management system has been put in to handle apps that try to do so.
Hay thar.
Actually, I like it for another reason.
No more having to listen to Hans Reiser take temper tantrums on the kernel mailing lists. I've never read more juvenile, whining, self-centered, arrogant, and childish posts in all my life. Rather than admit that maybe it wasn't appropriate for his code to be in the development kernel at a time when they were trying to freeze it, he whined, complained, and insulted everyone. Unable to acknowledge the technical reasons, he started accusing the core developers of favoritism, eliteness, and eventually just decided that there was one big conspiracy against him.
Although it saddens me that his code made it into the kernel, because of his behaviour, at least I won't have to read any more of his bitching.
It definitely gives me some insight as to why some people won't use GNU or GNU/Linux because RMS is the "spokesperson."
--
actually the ftp.*.kernel.org is not updated ...
xcyber """"""Complexity for the sake of complexity is not a solution, neither is simplicity for the sake of simplicity
This is either a troll or a case of bad misinformation. Odd version numbers are development (unstable), but that's the middle number, not the final one. so 2.4.1 is stable, because 4 is even. the 2.5 series will open in a few months time, and will eventually lead up to 2.6 or 3.0 or whatever the next stable branch is called.
--
It's ten times bigger than the kernel I started with -- 1.2.13!
-- Cheers!
The only differance is Linux isn't attaining global domination with massive marketing tie in's, illegal monopoly leveraging, and an airtight legal disclaimer wrapped around a shoddy rip-off implementation of other people's creations.
Other Msft bashes include last Sunday's Dave Barry column about his BSOD'ing pc, and this morning ABCNews has this blurb about "If Msft can be hacked is anybody safe". Hahahaha, silly mass media. That's like asking, if McDonalds food isn't so good, can ANY restaurant make a good meal? I mean, they're the largest restaurant chain in existance! They MUST have the best food. Duuuuh. Public opinion will turn eventually, and no $200,000,000 advertising campaign can keep their grand self delusion going forever.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The how come I'd doing Video recording Linux?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
2.4.1 is a formal stable release, not development.
The middle number of the 3 is even for stable releases, odd for development releases. The last digit is used to indicate (small) incremental upgrades and patches.
New development features will go in the 2.5.x (or 3.1.x if we really want change) tree.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
how about iptables?
xcyber """"""Complexity for the sake of complexity is not a solution, neither is simplicity for the sake of simplicity
The kernel docs explicitly state that if you're using PGCC, you're nuts. There's a reason those changes haven't been rolled into gcc yet. Incidentally, there's no such thing as egcs anymore. And finally, there's no sense in reporting bugs in the CVS tree without a corresponding fix or a very very well-narrowed problem definition--it's still in devel, and "it doesn't work for x" is not a big help in getting things fixed.
I've been digging for VIA IDE info too since I upgraded my mobo/cpu yesterday morning. I got a MSI K7T pro 2A (ata 100). Defaulting to DMA at boot up with 2.4.0 made my HD go BOOM. Check out signal ground for the most recent VIA IDE drivers:
http://www.signalground.com/article/3157986091
They worked like a charm for me.
Now I'm waiting for it to be put in distros. I guess I find it annoying how some distros (Mandrake, RedHat) go crazy if you change their kernel. However, they are better for getting a desktop to JUST WORK out of the box.
Heh. I'm currently running kernel 2.2.17 on this box that started it's life as RH 5.2. Sure, I've upgraded stuff via RPM and source tar.gz:s quite a lot during the last almost two years, but it works. ;) I haven't even used the distribution upgrade options available via the newer distributions.
Everyone who makes generalizations should be shot.
The only problem I had getting 2.4.0 to work with my RH 7 workstation was with USB...I had to tweak one line in the /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit file, and that was because 2.4 was actually displaying my USB character devices in /proc/devices, whereas 2.2.14 did not.
The one thing that will save you many headaches when upgrading your Red Hat kernel is to modularize as much as possible. This is the way that Red Hat's system initialization scripts like it, and it's probably good practice anyway.
--= ThreeTee =--
If anything, what I've seen most of is that they are critizised for being too slow to issue patches and upgrades, and also for releasing products that are claimed to be stable even when theres tons of outstanding bugs.
And 2.3 got up a lot higher than 12 or 13, but 2.3 is a development kernel - it's was not intended for normal use - all Linux releases 2.x.y with odd "x" are development kernels.
Even though I despise Windows, I'd be happy if MS did follow Linux' model and released patches more often, and didn't try to take their customers money for buggy crap while claiming it to be a "stable" version.
It's getting quite annoying with trolls like you who try to present the "hypocrisy" of the linux community, while presenting opinions that are by no means prevalent as if they were the opinions of the whole community.
So you feel that the world should be deprived of potentially very useful code just because you don't like its author's personality?
It's not like the world is being deprived of "potentially useful code." People have been using ReiserFS for ages now, and most distributions come with either a alternative kernel compiled with ReiserFS, or ReiserFS patches to the mainline kernel already installed.
Second, it's easy to obtain said patches. It's not like there's one guy, in the middle of the Sahara, that you need to send an SASE to in order to get the source code carefully inscribed on dried clumps of sand.
I'm not defending Mr Reiser's behavior, but don't you think that the code should speak for itself? I have no idea what he is like as a person and I don't really care as long as he writes good code.
Don't you think Mr. Reiser should let the quality and/or utility of the code speak for itself, rather than putting all sorts of pressure on the kernel developers to include his code NOW NOW NOW (or, if possible, yesterday)? For a long time, the kernel developers didn't put his code into the kernel because they had different plans. They wanted to make the foundations better for all journalling filesystems. Yet, rather than acknowledge that there might be a technical reason for the lack of inclusion of his code, Hans took a fit and accused anyone and everyone of being part of a conspiracy against him.
That doesn't sound like someone who lets code quality stand on its own.
I'd be perfectly willing to let his code stand on his own - as long as HE would let his code stand on its own. The second Hans Reiser made the character of the other kernel developers an issue, his own character became an issue as well.
--
You're absolutely right.
You have a very good point.
It is a double standard.
How do people justify two standards (apart from mind warp)?
Well, in this case, because one piece of software costs money, and people generally expect to get what they pay for. If it does not live up to their expectations of what the software should provide for that kind of money, then they will gripe, whine and complain.
Given the baseline of free software, software buyers want to see genuine value-added for the money they pay over the free solution. Their expectations have been raised so that they expect more than nothing for a price of zero (not even beginning to account for expectations raised by advertising of the product in question)
They want to see happen for computer software what has already happened for computer hardware -- cost/performance over the past couple of decades have plummeted by orders of magnitude.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Okay, there was a few bugs in 2.4, as there were bugs in every version of Windows and DOS before that, this is software after all, this happens. The difference between Windows and Linux is response time. It takes Microsoft months to fix even major security problems and minor problems can take years, if they are ever fixed at all. When they do fix problems, it tends to cause other problems, I point to WinNT SP 1-5 to prove my point. How many of those 65000+ bugs in Win2K have been fixed ? If you happen to be one of the many people who suffer from on of these bugs, don't bother call Microsoft, they will tell you this problem effects less than 2% of thier customers or that will be fixed in the next service pack and you have no way to fix the problem yourself.
It did take a long time to get from 2.2 to 2.4 as it took considerable time to get to 2.2, but I can rest easy that all the major bugs will be worked out quickly and even minor issues will be fixed soon enough and if I have to I can fix the problem myself or get someone who can. On top of all that, it costs me nothing but a little time and effort to upgrade to 2.4, were as it would cost me at least $49.95 to upgrade from Win98 to WinME as well as time and effort. There is absolutly no comparision here. Windows may win on the "Ease of use and installation" front, but looses horribly when we start to talk about stabilty, reliablity, timely bug fixes and total cost of ownership.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Hmm..
:>
.. Yes, NT is a different OS than Win9x .. therefore, they dumped the legacy stuff and some things broke. It's less severe under Linux, but the principle is the same.
2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z
2.x where x is obviously the SAME number. Like 2.2.0 stuff is intimately compatible with 2.2.18.
2.4.0 is a different x. A different MAJOR revision.
Lots of stuff DOES run under Microsoft OSs, I'm not refuting that part of the comment. But at least get your x's and y's right
I think it's nice to get rid of legacy software so you're not carrying the weight of its problems YEARS down the line. Hmm.. like 8.3 filenames?
--
Delphis
If you're like me and are just now starting to use reiserfs, they you might not have the tools to make, check, etc, the filesystem, and they *don't* come in the kernel patch. But seeing as it recommends that you use utils that match your version of reiserfs (3.6.25 in 2.4.1) then here are the recommended utils from namesys for 2.4.1 kernel.
bash: ispell: command not found
This sig left intentionally blank.
Just as well those FTP servers are all running a reliable OS I suppose... ;-)
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Won't anyone think about the mirrors!
Don't say anything unless you know what you're talking about.
*All* 2.4 kernels are 'stable'.
REAL men use Minix on an 8088 PS/2 model 20
Now I'm waiting for it to be put in distros. I guess I find it annoying how some distros (Mandrake, RedHat) go crazy if you change their kernel. However, they are better for getting a desktop to JUST WORK out of the box.
Yet another convert..who's the borg now. 8-)
Any details? How's MegaRAID broken? I've got a few production MegaRAID boxes, but no test boxes (right now). Have you tried building MegaRAID directly into the kernel?
No more waiting for reiserfs patches....it's about time.
When is the Alan Cox patch that addresses the hang on bootup (virtual framebuffer systems) going to be merged into the stable 2.4.x series?
Finally a journalling filesystem in the standard kernel..
I am in the middle of installing the Debian 2.4.0 kernel-source package which I got via the incredible apt-get. Someone recommended that I get my distro's kernel-source rather than the generic one, but it looked like all Debian did was fix a few typos.
Now I'm obviously going to go with 2.4.1 and abandon my 2.4.0 install (argh) but my question is, am I better off just using the generic kernel or should I wait for the Debian source package? Is there really much of a difference?
Thanks,
Carl
Vote Libertarian
The year is 2001 now. The 386 was released in 1986. I think it's time we leave it behind - a kernel that's able to run on a 386 might have been a feature - but this kind of feature can turn into a limitation if it's been a feature for long enough, for dragging our feet.
If you have a 386, I don't see the idea why you can't run kernels 2.2.x. You aren't likely running 386 SMP machines. 386 motherboards don't support USB and firewire - it's all-ISA, and security patches and minor improvements keeps rolling in.
Peace
Probably Mandrake 7.1, RedHat's at 7.0
> you know according to linus' our words a large patch like ReiserFS shouldn't have made it in.
...except that he had stated earlier that ReiserFS was on the slate for 2.4.1 . So, there is a bit of a discrepancy there, but given that the ReiserFS statement was specfic and the 2.4.1 statement was general, it seems reasonable to trust the specific.
Of course, treating Linus's quotes as gospel is a bit silly, anyway. Believe it or no, it *is* possible for Fearless Leader to make self-contradictory statements, and he has certainly gone back on his own statements before.
> Another thing is that apparently 2.4 was failing to boot on i386 machines. It had something to do with the CPU's cache not being large enough i belive.
This issue has been tracked down. Of note is the fact that it affects only a very small subset of 386's. If I recall correctly from Kernel Traffic, there was a recall on those early 386's anyway.
--Lenny
No, you don't have to run a kernel at all. If you think a kernel is too low-ranking for you, you could run a general in stead. General Protection is fine, but has some faults. I would never trust a damn kernel myself.
And no, there's no conflict between release early, release often, and "It's ready when it's ready". Actually, Linux is a good example here: Development snapshots are released often through the entire process, and even during the stable series, patches are published, and Alan Cox even put together his "ac" patches. New versions are released often.
On the other hand, there's no strict timetable for when to officially designate a release "stable".
Linus tried doing that with 2.4 - indicating that he wanted a short release cycle. Instead it indeed ended up being a case of "it's ready when it's ready": 2.4 got delayed by months because Linus and others wanted to make sure that it actually worked well, instead of sticking to the indicated schedule.
final:
- Al Viro: core file hardlink attack avoidance fix
pre12:
- Get non-cpuid Cyrix probing right (it's not a NexGen)
- Jens Axboe: cdrom tray status and queing cleanups
(etc., etc.)
Does this mean that there is only one change in 2.4.1? Or are all those changes (listed under pre12 through pre8) included in the final?
Some of the changes under pre# would affect me (APCI, AGP, r128, eepro100 updates), but the one change under final would not (as far as I can tell). I'll probably still install it, but can anyone read these change files? Are these all changes to 2.4.1, or are these just the last few change cycles?
UDF is the DVD filesystem support, totally unrelated. The problem the 386s were having was related to a bug in pagetable_init(). You can read the thread here.
I noticed that 2.4.0 didn't have ip_masq_quake and all those other ip_masq_* modules. Does this mean that 2.4.x doesn't need them any more, or that they haven't been written yet?
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
2.2.18 rocks? Super! Stick with it! There's no penalty for those who don't upgrade.
I had to go to 2.4 because I need iptables. Aside from my packet filter machine, I'll probably stick with 2.2.18, just because I've got it finely tweaked and everything works perfectly.
So here's to no "upgrade now!" thumbscrews!
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
The "hey, we've changed the kernel, and think its better now?" phase we are in? Internally, Microsoft does it too.
It doesn't go down after a week, but I figured that a week was long enough to be sure that the hardware is pretty stable. :-)
Excuses...Excuses... Everybody's got one.
:)
I thought about leaving that statement out of my post, but the fun of tweaking all the Linux trolls got the best of me.
I was talking to an MSCE buddy of mine yesterday, and he swore up and down he is running Linux 7.1 now.
That's because people don't understand the difference between a kernel and a distribution. He's probably running RedHat 7.1 or some other distro of that version number. So your MCSE friend may be right in what he said, he's just confusing terms.
Did you read the changelog and do a "mknod /dev/ppp c 108 0"? I had the same problem with my laptop until I bothered to RTFM.
--- if y cn rd ths y cn gt a gd jb n cmptr prgmmng!
But regardless, the kernel's device drivers are a part of the kernel. When a new version of the kernel is released, it contains, built in, source included, the latest versions of those device drivers. When device driver fixes are done, they are released as part of kernel releases. The central point, that Linux is updated once every month or two, or sometimes several times a month, because of the desire to release updated device drivers, is generally true.
As for the remaining comments, I'm trying to figure out what you're implying or believe I've said. They look like Linux advocacy, which is fine, but it's not exactly relevent. It remains the case that when Microsoft release updated device drivers, they'll release them with no apparent kernel version change. When Linux releases them, they will. As such, the absurd comments I was replying to suggesting that frequent releases of Linux are a bad thing and contrary to Microsoft's own practices are false. In Linux, version numbers include updates to device drivers. In Windows, version numbers are seperate to device drivers.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
- Which part of the above is "Funny"?
- Which part advocates or opposes microkernel or monolythic kernel design?
I was making a simple point. Updated device drivers will result in new kernel releases in a monolythic environment, by definition, and wont in a microkernel/otherwise seperate device space kernel design. There is nothing either good or bad about either implied, unless someone really agrees with the notion that version numbers Must Not Be Changed.Help me out here, it can't be that difficult to understand, can it?
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
A week is a bit poor, I've been up 25 days now on 2.4 on my workstation. It seems to behave much better under load and in out of memory conditions.
I'm tempted to move some of my servers to it.
Alex
System File Protection is a hack because there are so many broken and Win9x-specific installers out there (even from Microsoft), that it's not even funny.
If Windows was working right to begin with (system DLLs are upgraded only in service packs, not by app vendor installers), there would be absolutely no need for SFP.
(SFP is nice because you don't have to wince when you see Fred's Shareware installing MFC42.DLL into your \WINNT\SYSTEM32, but Fred was just doing what Microsoft told him to do.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Yes, all of the changes are included in the file. the pre# just shows when it was changed. Its also useful to know what changed when if you are using the pre versions.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
2.4.1:
As of 2.4.1, the kernel now conforms to the Open Naming Specification. According to the specification, any or all of the following pronunciations are considered "correct"; feel free to add your own!
I hope this helps.
Jay (=
When are these Gnome guys gonna get their act together and make their Gnome counterpart called gernel? We can't have KDE is the only one with an ernel implementation.
Please send it to the mailing list, with a detailed report, and a log from your /var/log/messages with the part that went wrong.
Someone will look at it over there. Mailing to Linus won't help you since he got nothing to do with AMI Megatrend..
Hetz (Heunique)
Oh, I (and lots of other people) wish there was such a converter. I emailed PowerQuest about adding ReiserFS support for Partition Magic - but so far, I didn't get any answer from them
Hetz (Heunique)
I pinged it and only 50% of my packets came back, so....
Microsoft has claimed that in the past -- there used to be a list of DOS and Win3.1 applications that were certified to run on NT.
Notice "run" and not install and run correctly. There are still major applications (Mozilla!) that have no clue about NT's multiuser-ness and treat it just like a slightly different version of Win95. Microsoft refuses to break these applications, because they include their own products (like Office 97).
So many Win3.1 apps worked under 9x, that it easier to list the ones that didn't work.
Your point is right on -- Microsoft lives and grows by it's binary back compatibility. Linux accomplishes it's political goals through it's source compability and openness. (But to be fair, the idea of source compatibility instead of binary is much older than Linux and goes back to the roots of UNIX.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Check this out:
:)
How to pronounce Linux
How to pronounce Linux
A poll from Linux.com
Funny that this guy is so confused that he is mistakenly informing people to pronounce it the WRONG way.
Duh. You just shit in your own nest.
It is LIN-ix. When I lived in the dorms, we had one guy that always called it the incorrect way, LYE-nix. When we finally had the heart to tell him, he killed himself.
The moral of the story is, pronounce Linux as LIN-ix, or you may shoot yourself one day.
suse already announced that 7.1 will included 2.4, should be out in a week or so
Do the 2.4.x kernels have built-in VPN masq support. I hate having to patch my older kernels to get it to route VPN properly,
Okay, I can see why you may have modded this down, but actually Smith and Jones where advocates of open source printing presses. So, it really isn't off topic.
Your situation is an EXACT mirror of mine!
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
SIG: HUP
lag is 500ms with a fast cablemodem.
--
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
I wouldn't expect to see a DRI module anytime soon. At least not one that works as well as NVidia's own 3D accelleration for XFree86 4.0.
Hey Taco!
How about adding goatse.cx to the lameness filter?
Umm, I can't figure out if you're serious or trolling or ignorant.
Linux drivers can, and are updaed independently of the kernel all the time. In fact, you can unload an old driver and load in a new driver all without rebooting. Your users might not even notice. No, it's not really a 'microkernel', but it shares a lot of a microkernel's features in that regard.
Windows requires a reboot every time you loaded a driver, last time I checked. Also, drivers conflicts and incompatibilities are rampant. One of the whole points of Windows 2000 was for Microsoft to start making sure that the drivers vendors released were lots less buggy so their system wouldn't BSOD as often as it used to.
Near as I can tell, while Windows NT/2000's might be based on a microkernel, it has no effect on the system as a whole aside from the additional technical marketing buzzwords people can use to describ it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I am 3.
Another thing is that apparently 2.4 was failing to boot on i386 machines. It had something to do with the CPU's cache not being large enough i belive.
after looking at the change log think this might be it..
Fix UDF writepage() page locking
anyone know for sure?
-Jon
Streamripper
this is my sig.
While Microsoft isn't liable for the same reason that no software company is liable (years and years of crappy developers have made users come to *expect* buggy software) "liability" goes against the freedom of Linux. If you want Linux to remain free and democratic and all that shit, then you can't enforce product quality. That's why the LSB is such a bad idea. It forces vendors to conform and release good (or at least uniformly mediocre) products.
/. is the "I don't get subtly" capital of the world.
PS> Yea I know
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Well, I tried getting it from my local mirror.ac.uk but it wasnt up there, so I checked out the bandwidth on kernel.org and it was less then 50% used, so I grabbed it.
Microsoft
Certified
Shit (R)(TM)
Eater
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
You really don't have to, since reiserfs is resizable (though, for that matter, so is ext2 though only offline). Particularly easy if you have LVM and the ext2online patch applied (in which case all of the following should be possible without any disruption in service whatsoever):
Shrink your ext2 filesystem. Create a reiserfs in now-free space. Copy data over. Delete ext2 filesystem and resize reiser-based fs to fill remaining space.
Okay, done. You don't have the ext2online patches? Means you'll have to use parted or PartitionMagic for the first step... a shame, that. You aren't using LVM? You'll have to move the ext2 partition to the back of the disk as well as resizing it (something parted won't do but PartitionMagic probably will) as a reiserfs partition can only online-extend from its tail.
Still quite doable.
>How did you check the bandwidth on kernel.org?
The site's bandwidth utilisation is usually listed on its home page.
>I've never heard of a tool that does that, but
> would be interested to learn about one.
Never heard about such a thing myself.
Try using sndconfig next time you're on a Red Hat or Mandrake box, and listening to the sample wave:
"Hello, this is Linus (rhymes with `Guinness') Torvalds. And I pronounce Linux (rhymes with `cynics') Linux (still rhymes with `cynics')".
Real Men use Xenix on an Altos box.
Hay thar.
Considering BIND isn't in the kernel.....
--
Free Mac Mini
I dont think you could unless you run a local program, gkrelm shows me usage of eth0 and eth1, which is cool.
About Microsoft and 8.3 filenames, here is an excercise.
Find a system file in Windows NT or Windows 2000 that has a filename longer than 8.3
Drop legacy, my ass.
If you've read the ChangeLog, you'll notice that there's a change for almost everything. Regardless of what you use your computer for, and update will probably help you out. Remove all your 2.4-ac patches and tack on the 2.4.1 series patch, then get the next AC patch due out in five minutes (Alan Cox has a LOT of time on his hands based on how fast his patches were released when 2.4 came - as many as 2 a day!).
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
SIG: HUP
Fully modularized code also means that in BeOS, my NVIDIA drivers are a mere untar away on any BeOS version, while in Linux, I almost invariably have to recompile the drivers. Face it, the Linux driver interface is broken. The sheer fact that NVIDIA has to go through so many hoops to release a binary driver shows just how broken it is.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
You need the secret 11 herbs and spices for the kernel package.
Oh darn it's not for Windows, oh well and I was hoping that new open sourced version had finally hit the shelves ;)
My point was that the person I was replying to was wrong, the Debian version is not the same as the kernel version. If it were, then Debian would end up using the 2.3-devel kernels with their next release ;)
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I was talking to an MSCE buddy of mine yesterday, and he swore up and down he is running Linux 7.1 now.
I guess I have to give the new kenrel a run then. I wasn't sure if the 9-6 drivers supported the new kernel...I looked in the FAQ and I didn't see nothing...
From Zero to Hero... Starbuck Zero
Then that's more or less irrelevant. a .0.X release is nearly the same as a service pack. Tons of stuff breaks during a .0.X release (such as drivers, ahem) while service packs rarely (if you're lucky, some people aren't) break anything.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
--
Except that they can. A much higher percentage of Win95 software runs on Win98 than 2.2 software runs (perfectly) on 2.4. The same is true in reverse (for the most part, discounting apps that use '98 specific APIs.) Of course, if your talking about NT and '95, you're on crack. Complaining that NT doesn't run all '95 apps is silly. They're totally different OSs.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
i love the kernal's chicken. uh, wait a sec... wrong kernal/colonel...
2.4.1 = 7
7 herbs and spices...
mmmmmmmmmmm.....
For your specific example. In the closed-source world of Microsoft, Sun, etc...
:)
First of all, since the compiler is not bundled with the OS it could be released a few months after the OS. In the meantime making the beta available for people to use and test.
In fact, both companies have done this quite frequently.
Your characterization of closed-source companies while entertaining tends to ignore facts and history.
As far as the RedHat making it work better than it should... Need we remind you of that RameN Worm?
No there is not a double standard. Windows costs money, and is developed by a very large company with thousands of programmers who are well paid. When I buy a copy, I expect it to work the way I want it too, I also expect problems to be handled quickly and without a complication. My expectations are further raised because of the marketing that takes place, in that they should provide a product that does what they themselves say it should do. Whether or not I would get this is another topic altogether. Of course if you read the EULA, they do not garrantee it will do anything, but none the less my expectations have been set. I hold RedHat to this standard as well.
Linux is for all intents and purposes free, I have never bought an "Offical" copy, although I have to pay for the media, $2.95 from CheapBytes or $0.50 if I want to download the ISO and burn it myself. It is developed primarily by programmers in thier spare time, most do not get paid for what they contribute and certainly all the Companies developing distibutions of Linux combined do not have the resources available to the that Microsoft does. My expectations are much lower, the fact that I get a fully funtional Operating System speaks volumes about the Open Source model.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
2.4.0 was released very early in January, not "just last week".
If MS released a patch or hotfix a week after a major release, it would be because of a horiffic bug or security hole. The *reason* for the release is important.
2.4.1 adds functionality. ReiserFS is a journaling filesystem that is now in the official kernel. That's good news.
Linux has had problems with 2.x.1 releases being les stable than 2.x.0. Linus intends this not to be the case.
Producing patches often is a good thing whether it fixes a bug or adds functionality. That dosn't mean that any patch or upgrade can't simultaneously represent an embarassment for a developer. That depends entirely on the reason for the release.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Patti Smith first sang "Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine"
I know, I just like Billy Idol's song better, though I have been told it is blasphemey and that I should commit suicide immeadiatly so as not to pass on my obvious lack of music taste to the next generation. I have adjusted my sig accordingly.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
As a result of this, releasing updated device drivers or other updated components means releasing a "new" kernel, even though the central structure and code is unchanged.
This is incorrect, I can and have upgraded my Video card, Sound card and Network card. I downloaded, built and installed the new drivers all without rebooting the system let alone recompiling the kernel and when I install or upgrade an application, I never have had to reboot the system. Windows on the other hand has to be rebooted after installing any driver and many applications including Office 2K. This tells me whatever method Linux is using to load device drivers and software libraries is clearly better than the methods used by Windows.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
IP Tables is available as a patch (module) for the 2.2 Kernels...
Jeremiah Cornelius
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
You caon't have it both ways. Linux is either about Open-ness, or quality. Sometimes the two coincide, sometimes they don't. Take your pick.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
> You guys evidently haven't seen good trolls if you think this is elegant. This is such an obvious troll that it's not even amusing. Needs a much better write-up.
This is pure jealousy. The troll is rude, got #10, had 17 replies, and is scored '0: Insightful'
Sure, it is an obvious troll. Any sufficiently non-obvious troll is indistinguishable from karma-whoring. I tend to like obvious trolls when they are elegant. And, IMHO, this one is.
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
It's about making smart consumer decisions. You have a choice on whether you should support companies that are doing "the wrong thing"
Examples include:
Anything winmodem - You should refuse to buy, or sell these. If they come in an OEM system, demand that it be replaced with a real modem, or buy another system that has a real modem.
Video cards that have only closed source binary drivers that *still* don't work properly with SMP systems.
CPU's with serial numbers
Hard disks that blow off the CRC check in UDMA mode, bye bye data.
Monopolistic companies.
example:
Does Microsoft Space Cadet Table (a mission critical app) run on Linux?
Instead ask "Is there some other mission critical app that runs on Linux that is as fun as, and perhaps more fun than Space Cadet Table?"
It's not _that_ hard, it just requires that the consumer makes a sound decision.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9810/09/nt5.idg/
I'm not sure if it meets your definition of a "fucking" source, but here's an article from CNN in 1998 that discusses in passing how NT 5 was supposed to ship in 1997.
--Shoeboy
'Cause if you don't release it officially, you'd never get it tested. Bet you didn't know M$ has about a million different versions of Win95 (and 98 too - don't forget Service packs on top of THAT)!
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
SIG: HUP
Would it make you happier if they just released a .diff and called it "Linux 2.4.0 Plus"? :-)
It's free (as was 2.4.0). It's got new features (e.g. ReiserFS). There's no marketing department pushing people to upgrade from the 2.2.x kernels. And besides all that, the "newest (i.e. development) kernel" is constantly available, not just officially sanctioned "service packs". And, to me, there's a big difference between "You know that program you just paid $500 for? You need Service Pack 1 for it or [whatever] won't work" and "You know that thing you found for free on the internet a month ago? There's an also-free patch for it if you've been having a problem with [whatever]"
Mind you, I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't quite "get" the apparent hostility in the message...
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Incidentally, there's no such thing as egcs anymore.
Oceaneia has always been at war with Eurasia.
Oh, nuts! And I'm literally in the middle of a 2.4.0 install right now!
Chelloveck
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
If kernel.org is slow, go here.
We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked.
I JUST finished getting 2.4.0 to work perfectly last night, sigh, I knew this would happen ;^)
Patti Smith first sang "Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine"
Billy Idol was just quoting her song. It's not really in Billy's line, which runs more like:
"Hey little sister, Shotgun!"
or going wayyy back: "One hundred Punks rule!"
Jeremiah Cornelius and the Stiff Little Fingers.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
A commercial company like Microsoft wouldn't do this because they have the financial responsibility of selling their goods.
I take it you have never bothered actually using any of Microsofts products.
Find funky gifts
Give me the open development model any day!
www.ethernalquest.org/linux-2.4.1.tar.bz2 No gurantee that it will stay up tho =) (will be up in like 5-10 mins)
Before you email me, remember: "There is no god!"
What's the big deal with reiserfs, devfs, and the shared memory file systems?
Are they valid for kernel proper?
And what is the purpose for the shared memory stuff?
I've read a little about journaling file systems, they sound neat. And I don't think I fully understand the purpose of devfs, but why the new fstab entry for shm?
New worlds are not born in the vacuum of abstract
ideas, but in the fight for daily bread --Rudolf Rocke
The mirrors won't be overflowing because half the linux community is at the Linux World Expo in NYC for the next few days. Too bad I'm stuck in !@#%$%$!#!@#$ school, otherwise I'd be using my ticket and be on my way there right now =(
I am !amused.
MCSE... Must Call Someone Else Nuff said...
When the compiler explodes, leaving pasta all over the walls, there is clearly a glitch that wasn't trapped.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I honestly believe that public ownership of stocks coupled with the hero worship can turn capitalist ideals into communist reality.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I was going to try this, but both http://gnu.gcc.org/ and the Changes doc in the kernel source say this is bad juju. The GCC 2.96/2.97 tree isn't meant for these kinds of things anyway, since the binaries it makes aren't forward or backward compatible with other GCC releases.
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
But, yeah, you're right, bugs -are- going to crop up in snapshots. That's natural. That's why it's in CVS and not a final release.
On the other hand, IMHO, if you're on the leading edge, you're going to want to know what other leading edges yours is compatiable with. It's less stressing and more knowing the lay of the land.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Certainly their signing isn't totally bad. I'd suggest you try downloading from a different mirror and see if it comes out clean. You might also want to check your gpg version--I have 1.0.4.
You obviously don't understand how Linux as an OS is developed...
Linux itself is just the kernel - there's many, many more components, such as the C libraries, system utils, shells, X, etc., all of which are developed largely independently. Because of the open-source development idea of 'release early, release often' many small, incremental releases of these components are made all the time. Typically these are just evolutionary changes, not 'patches' for critical bugs or flaws, and their existance doesn't invalidate use of earlier versions - ie: there's normally no burning reasons why any given upgrade is necessary. This is the kind of development that would be happening at M$ as well, just underneath their veil of secrecy, so you never see all the builds of all the different M$ OS components that happen.
Linux as an OS comes from a distribution vender, like Debian, where they take a snapshot of the state of all of these components at some time and build a complete OS from it. When you get a distro, you're guaranteed to get an integrated, complete, secure system, with security/critical bug fixes if such bugs ever become apparent. They don't go include all the latest versions of everything - typically they're at least a few months behind the cutting edge, to ensure their system as a whole can be certified stable.
I can't understand why people have such a problem with the concept. I've had 5 replies now to my posting by people who don't understand that device drivers are part of the Linux kernel. I suggest that those still having problems with the concept go read the change logs. If releasing updates to device drivers wasn't part of releasing new kernel versions, you wouldn't see anything about device drivers in those change logs now would you?
Well, would you?
Incidentally, video card device drivers are not usually part of Linux. That's a FWIW. Usually the support is via XFree86 instead.
But for the umpteemph time: Go read the original article. Now read mine. Now see how it explains why Windows is updated just as often as Linux, only because of the different structural differences, the updates to Linux are just more "obvious".
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
from the help on reiserfs:
Sponsored by Threshold Networks, Emusic.com, and Bigstorage.com.
egads...previews for tv shows at the begining of rented videos and now this...
just kidding, I actually think that this is a really good thing. especially the line bellow it:
If you like it, you can pay us to add new features to it that you
need, buy a support contract, or pay us to port it to another OS.
I think the real versioning system is "anything less than x.x.20 is unstable, and anything with an odd middle version number is even more unstable."
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It doesn't appear in the menuconfig, but appears in the xconfig. The code seems to be there.
clancey
Any particular reason the kernel distribution system still relies exclusively on manual selection of mirrors by hostname? What's wrong with an automated load-balancing setup?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Not really... the 2.2 branch hasn't even reached 2.2.20 yet, and it's been really stable for a while. basically, among "stable" (even middle number) kernels, you have to go by reputation (or do some heavy testing yourself, if you have the time and resources). there have been cases where a stable revision (within the 2.2 branch, or earlier within the 2.0 one) was worse than the previous one. in the 2.2 branch, 2.2.5 was already quite stable. my feeling with 2.4 is that it has been handled better than 2.2; I wouldn't be surprised to see something like 2.4.2 shipped by major distributions and widely deployed.
OT: in case you want to try Win2K again...
There's a reghack-NOT-patch for your particular scenario. I had similar problems under Win2K until I applied this fix--crashed every few hours, especially in 3D games. It's chipset independent--happens with VIA, SiS, ALI, AMD, you name it. I applied this fix, and Win2K now actually gets uptime comparable to WinNT. That's not saying much, I know...
Interesting that it only happens with Win2K. Says something about that O/S...like maybe it was rushed out of the door? Not like that's anything new from MS.
Kelledin Tane, the Dreaming Minstre
"All your base are belong to us."
Whistler is going to be awesome, the animated office assistant is BUILT IN!!
intensebeta used to have screenshots, but Microsoft lawyers made them pull all of them.
One shot had the user using the "search" function to find a file on the hard disk, and an animated yellow dog popped up to offer "suggestions".
I will not be using Whistler ever.
Does the fact that Microsoft took the Windows 2000 Team to Whistler/Blackcomb in British Columbia have anything to do with the beta name?
I'd far rather wait until it's ready than have incomplete and buggy releases rushed out to meet a predetermined schedule, which is what those "professional" software houses do far too frequently. Not having a rigid schedule is one of the benefits of open source, not a liability.
I should know. I'm one of the conspirators that started egcs.
The egcs and FSF gcc projects merged in April 1999, and put out the first combined release (2.95) at the end of July 1999.
The GCC (not EGCS) snapshots represent ongoing development and occasionally something breaks. Please report such things, but don't stress about it; you should expect to find bugs in the snapshots.
Sounds like somebody's been tampering with your BIND. :-)
--
Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann
rr
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
very nicely done, sure to bring out the hordes..
The difference between Theory and Practice is greater in Practice than in Theory.
http://209.233.130.20/slashdot/
enjoy...
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Although I'm sure this thread is officially "dead"
The fact that NVIDIA has to go through so many hoops is to get them to release source code to it - if they "played by the rules", then, like the Radeon, they wouldn't have to go through these hoops, in fact, they would be in the operating system that people use. Stunning fact that really. And they might actually get fixed too!
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
gpg --verify linux-2.4.1.tar.gz.sign linux-2.4.1.tar.gz
gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jan 2001 12:56:09 AM MST using DSA key ID 517D0F0E
gpg: BAD signature from "Linux Kernel Archives Verification Key "
While for the bz2 version I get:
gpg --verify linux-2.4.1.tar.bz2.sign linux-2.4.1.tar.bz2
gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jan 2001 01:02:44 AM MST using DSA key ID 517D0F0E
gpg: Good signature from "Linux Kernel Archives Verification Key "
I had the same problem with ppp with 2.4.0 (ive used linux since 2.0.31, and yes i also know how to install pppd and a new kernel :)) 2.4.1 gave me no problems with pppd, so that appears to be fixed
This morning we found out that an important RH6 server has been hacked. A lot of programs have been replaced by hacked versions: ls,ps,ssh,sshd,netstat etc. In order to be sure that everything is as it should, we have to reinstall. With ReiserFS, it seems...
I have now downloaded from ftp.us.kernel.org, and from ftp.kernel.org.
I did the following:
# gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 0x517D0F0E
then I did:
# gpg --verify linux-2.4.1.tar.gz.sign linux-2.4.1.tar.gz
gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jan 2001 02:56:09 AM EST using DSA key ID 517D0F0E
gpg: BAD signature from "Linux Kernel Archives Verification Key "
And finally, just to be sure, I did:
# gpg --list-public-keys
/root/.gnupg/pubring.gpg
pub 1024D/517D0F0E 2000-10-10 Linux Kernel Archives Verification Key
sub 4096g/E50A8F2A 2000-10-10
Which looked valid to me.
Is the new kernel not signed properly, am I not doing this properly, or is something VERY BAD happening?
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
http://www.hardcorelinux.com/kernel-howto.htm
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
Excuse me? Microsoft wouldn't do this?
Besides the fact that a 2.3.x was available every few weeks... In case your memory is very short, there was a 2.0.1 release soon after 2.0.0, and a 2.2.1 release soon after 2.2.0.
-- [ta]
Even though I despise Windows, I'd be happy if MS did follow Linux' model and released patches more often
I guess you're happy then?
NO CARRIER
So much for Torvalds saying "We will only release it when it's ready". Looks like Microsoft aren't the only ones who can rush a buggy product into release.
4 *weeks* for a point update?
"Life is like a sewer - what you get out of it depends on what you put into it" - Tom Lehrer
How long did it take for NT4 to move to win2000?
How long from Mac system 7 to 8? to 9? to X?
Linux moves along very nicely.
yadda
I believe Win2k is mostly a microkernel. If I remember correctly, the GDI was moved into the kernel for Win2k to improve performance.
Most binary applications for Windows 3.1 still work with Windows 2000 (and everything in between).
You are so wrong here, I work in Tech Support on the phones and I can tell you 30% + of our customers are calling in asking to swap WinME for Win98 because some or all of thier software no longer works and to make matters worse, thier bigger, better and faster machines perform worse when using WinME then when they "Downgraded" to Win98.
Jesus died for sombodies sins, but not mine.
"Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
-Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development
Minesweeper
Certified
Solitaire
Expert
This sig intentionally left blank.
For once the mirrors seem to have had enough time to get the files. Kernel.org is already painfully slow, giving me a measly 20k/sec. If you're in Europe, try the Funet mirror. I got a decent 320k/sec from there, entire download took about a minute (and I'm not talking about the patch file).
Linux means LINus's UniX. In his original tongue, Linus pronounces it like Lee-nukes. Properly 'americanized', it is LYE-NIX/Line-ix.
There's a lot of Linux newbies out there that think that the correct pronounciation IS LINN-IX. Incorrect: Lennox makes air conditioners and refridgerators.
Funny that this guy is so confused that he is mistakenly informing people to pronounce it the WRONG way. :)
Just pay more attention, or setup Junkbuster, or something.
Free JEFFK!
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
-- Eat your greens or I'll hit you!
pre8:
- ReiserFS merge
Nice, nice, nice. Finally they agree.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
I have a similar system and 2.4.0 worked great. The slight boost in kernel performance combined with reiserfs patch makes this Athlon box cook.
But my PII266 laptop is quite another story. 2.4.0 wouldn't detect the pcmcia network card, sound would not work AT ALL (despite it being a 100% SB clone), and the weirdest thing by far was the fact that I would find my BIOS settings cleared every time I rebooted. And this was on a (fairly standard) mobile 440BX chipset. I had to revert to 2.2.18 and everything's been fine since.
So, I think that I have to concur with people who warned folks like me not to upgrade to 2.4 unless they had a good reason to.
The module loader is still broken. I don't know about you guys but I have to put all my modules in /lib/modules/2.4.x/misc - then run depmod -a in order for the stupid thing to see the modules.
Is it fixed in 2.4.1? I use 2.4.0-test12 and it doesn't work.
Thx
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
Because automatically directing to a server based on location tends to take away people's choices. (This can be worked around, but I'm referring to what is common practice these days.) What happens when the mirror is not up to date? Or the page is gone (404'd)? Or the server is down?
I personally like to select my own mirrors so that I can choose who I download from. In other words, I will almost always choose the server of a for-profit corporate entity than that of a university or non-profit organization when downloading something as large as a kernel tarball.
Plus, the people who run the kernel.org page reason that anyone downloading and building their own kernels ought to be smart enough to figure out to get to a mirror.
Linux is a monolythic kernel. This means that low level system components such as device drivers are part of the kernel (even if they're loaded seperately, such as with modules.) As a result of this, releasing updated device drivers or other updated components means releasing a "new" kernel, even though the central structure and code is unchanged.
New device drivers are released for Windows on a periodic basis, and other low level components are often changed without the user even knowing - popular applications from IE to Office regularly "update" the user's operating system to whatever was latest at the time that product was released.
The fact that the version number of Windows doesn't change doesn't mean it doesn't change just as regularly, if not more often.
--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Right right right,
and professional houses ship things late all the time too, NT 5 was supposed to ship in '97.
But I think some criticism of the slowness of kernel updates is self inflicted.
Don't you recall the heady days of 1998 when all the linux advocates were boasting about the speed of releases and proclaiming open source as a magic bullet that would lead to instant release and completely bug free code?
I think that the linux community is now suffering from a backlash brough on by having had too many advocates who were assholes, see Nick Petreley for a good example.
If you don't want to face heavy bitter criticism, don't make outrageous claims.
And for the love of God, read the linux-advocacy-howto.
--Shoeboy
Indeed! I vote for a new release every day! (and a -testN version every hour or so:)
Prove it. Please name 3 examples of programs (preferably ones that are at least fairly widely used) that run perfectly under 2.2 that have any issues under 2.4.
Accusation without documentation is nothing more than lazy trolling.
A commercial company like Microsoft wouldn't do this because they have the financial responsibility of selling their goods.
A TRULY GREAT TROLL!
Nobody who knows what they're doing buys release 1 of ANYTHING from Micro$quish. All together, now, "Wait for the Service Pack!!!!"
Teen Angel - a Ghost Story
It does. It's called Debian. I'm being totally serious, not sarcastic.
apt is the package tool for Debian and nothing compares. Windows Update is admittedly quite nice, but I updated my boss's Win98SE machine the other day and then it wouldn't boot. After 3 days of hell trying to re-install and fussing with finding the right Product ID numbers etc. we finally have him back up and running.
This has never happened to me in 3 plus years of using Debian.
Hey, where is a good place for a linux wanna be like myself to get good instruction on how to upgrade my kernal to 2.4?
Real men use a zeroless numerical system on an abacu... oh, fuck it.
I did know that 2.even were "production" releases; 2.odd, development. I assumed that 2.x.y was a patch, a service pack. I assumed a .x upgrade (from, say, 2.2 to 2.4) was a major change. I remember going to 2.0 meant that a lot of libraries had to be recompiled, and had the same impression when I tried 2.2. I assumed 2.4.1 would be the first major patchset to the kernel--as opposed to downloading a major bunch of source to build out a new kernel, a smaller patch could be applied. It was pointed out that there was a bit more going (functionality, etc.) on which I was not aware of. mea maximu culpa. The same has happened with NT service packs, though not as obvoiusly.
Some have pointed out my 2.4 release date estimate was off--sorry. This year has just flown!
I think, if I do say so myself, that this was an insightful thread for me. What did I learn? First, the fact that it is free can matter. I had a hard time believing that, but I see how making a ship date can have an impact.
I think, one lesson I could also offer: all the Linux advocate rhetoric that goes around leaves an impression of arrogance. One point that always comes out in materials praising Linux is that quick turn around of patches was a plus. "You have the code--you can even create the patch yourself" almost seems to be the credo of its fans.
At the same time, any time a patch or service pack for Windows NT comes out, I have seen more than a few articals, here and elsewhere, that comment on the fact that a patch was required, etc. It leaves many with the impression I had, that of a double standard.
Why am I pointing this out? Until today, the logic behind distinction was never clear to me. It was always "Linux does it: good--it's free. MS does it--bad! They charge." Now, while I don't necessarily agree with it, I understand it better.
Did you update your modutils like it said to?
Oh - this is the fun part. Someone has had some fun with that kernel module between 2.4.0-test9 and 2.4.0. If you look at the driver version, it hasn't actually changed - but the code _has_. This isn't AMIs fault at all, unless they sent the totally broken and nonworking version to the kernel maintainers. Unlikely. The fix seems to be either a) copy in megaraid.c from a test kernel, or b) download the latest megaraid.c from AMI, and just copy the file over the top.
Maybe I'm laying the blame in the wrong direction, but it really looks like someone tinkered with an already working driver, and didn't bother to mention it in the comments at the top of the file.
Which was nice.
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
It affects modular or kernel build, since they both use the same .c file, and hence contain the same bug ;-)
Yes, I did test this before I went delving into the code.
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
"I think this is why people are suspicious of open source - it has no responsibility, and no liability, so it can afford to release what was, evidently, not the finished article...
...A commercial company like Microsoft wouldn't do this because they have the financial responsibility of selling their goods."
really now?
"From of old, there are not lacking things that have attained Oneness." - Lao Tzu
Yeah well - I just mailed him because that's what t says to do if there isn't anyone appropriate listed in the MAINTAINERS file ;-)
Which is the appropriate mailing list for this? I had wanted to just report it without having to subscribe to something and being spammed to hell and back. It's a really easy fix, just use a nonbroken version.
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
MS doesn't need a working product to sell their goods. Trust me. I've used all but 3 of their OSs... (2000, Dos 2 and Dos 1. ME doesn't count... :-)
I've been using 2.4 to some considerable benefit (my APM now works right) and no detriment for some time now. I think the idea that 2.4.1 implies the inadequacy of 2.4 is wrong, or at least oversimplified... 2.4.1, if you read the changefile, largely works on the more experimental aspects (DevFS, LVM, J*-FS); Actually, I heard it suggested that the VM handling went downhill in certain situations... I don't think I beleive it, though...
He who fights and runs away,
What is this mysterious "kernel" package I keep hearing about? Have we finally come into the new world order where all operating systems run on one kernel that does not need a name? God bless America, I knew we'd standardize someday.
Note: this post is sarcastic, just in case you're wondering.
He who fights and runs away,
http://rute.raleigh.nc.us/dist (Not an official mirror though, just three T1's :)
Don't sweat the petty things. But do pet the sweaty things.
2.4.2 - The answer to life, the universe, and everything
(Well, sort of)
---
Check in...OK! Check out...OK!
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
Your last four lines are nearly incoherent. Might you please rephrase what you were trying to say? Not a flame, an honest request...
Hi, I'm a pretentious cock who will make some gay comment about ignoring AC posts here.
Wait now slow down, you gotta build it up to a climax.
The counterpoint in disagreement and in FUD, well that was just delicious.
However for those confused I must explain.
Linux is as modular as makes sense. If I need a new driver I untar the driver files and compile.
No reloading of the OS, no reboot no recompile of the kernel.
The reason drivers are in the kernel tree though separate, is because they're built by the Linux developers. That mneans the code is optimized on a level most compilers can't touch: the basic interface to the kernel.
Fully modularized code leads to bloat, conflicts between similar drivers from different companies, a lot of unnecessary bookkeeping exercises while drivers operate, LOSS of performance.
Thank you.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I read linuxtoday.com that the DMA is now disabled by default with VIA chipsets because it's not working properly. I have an Abit KT7 (via kt133 chipset) and it seems to be working ok, except I get a LOT of "VFS: Disk change detected on device ide1(22,0)" and " dma_intr: status=0x51 { DriveReady SeekComplete Error }" messages.
The drive is still MUCH faster than with DMA disabled in the kernel. Anyone have any more details?
A commercial company like Microsoft wouldn't do this because they have the financial responsibility of selling their goods.
Microsoft doesn't need to worry about financial responsibility. They have a monopoly. People will buy their products because they have no choice. They get money on almost ever PC sold in the United States and I bet the same is true overseas through their OEM deals. So whether you know it or not you most likely paid microsoft money for software you don't necessarily use.
And they call people who download warez pirates...
Just goes to show you that theft can be made part of a legally binding agreement and that the extremely cunning and intelligent people like Bill Gates can exploit the law to make money.
"...the financial responsibility of selling their goods."
duh
I didn't know we were into that kind of redundancy.
In all honesty, I'm really thinking this post was intended to be a joke, but...
"From of old, there are not lacking things that have attained Oneness." - Lao Tzu
Microsoft cannot claim that at all.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
For the other side of this, consider Redhat 7.x. Their business plan called for a release when the compiler they wanted wasn't ready. In the closed-source paradigm, they would have called it ready and shipped bugs. Since the compiler is GPL'd they had to explicitly ship a beta compiler, and we got some fair warning about those bugs which we wouldn't have gotten from Microsoft or Sun. By the way, Redhat has done a wonderful job of making that work far better than it should, to judge by the reports of people who have been using it. In the usual closed-source, proprietary course of events, a closed source vendor such as Sun or MS would have denied the bugs, threatened customers to try to hush things up, and the folks who laid out big bucks for the bugs would have had to pay for an upgrade.
How is Linux ever to become a commercial success/serious platform if development takes years? Same way it's been getting there all along, I guess, by being so much better than the stuff that's rushed out the door to keep the marketing department happy.
See what I've been reading.
A commercial company like Microsoft would do this because their market desires upgrades just as Linuxers do. They are frothing at the mouth to pay Microsoft.
Paying Microsoft has the following benefits:
1. You are in the presence of unearned fame when you use their software.
2. Unearned fame is the staple of many industries. It's a basic fact of Hollywood, Silicon Valley, AOLTimerica.
3. Unearned fame means progress.
4. Therefore by association you have progressed.
5. Even Karl Marx agrees with #4.
Thank you.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Seems to be the one who modded you up +1 informative rather than +1 funny.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You're missing the point of the Linux kernel. The intent of the kernel developers and Linus himself is to make a good kernel. They then use that kernel. We should all be greatful that they allow us to use their kernel.
If companys depend on the use of the Linux kernel and want something changed about it, they should begin developing for it themselves. Companys are no different than hackers in this respect. As such, the "professionalised" development system you envision can come about by companies doing their own development
2.4.0-test9: works
2.4.0: broken.
2.4.1: still broken.
Just a little bit of a problem for people who sensibly are using a megaraid card for their root filesystem.
I just mailed Linus...
--
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
Commercial companies make damn sure their products are out on time
???????????
Please enlighten us by providing us the names of these esteemed companies, I'm eager to purchase software from them.
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. - "Big Al" Einstein
Did I just lump the open source management community into the same bucket as Microsoft? Guess I did. Around /. I know that's quite a politically incorrect thing to do, but it is accurate. Software development problems are software development problems, regardless of the passion of the developers. Open Source management needs to wake up and smell the coffee or the open source projects like this will all get the reputation of untested, underdeveloped hackware.
More race stuff in one place,
than any one place on the net.
Thanks, guys.
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
When the open source community does it, they speak so highly about being able to react to bugs. It is a Good Thing.
I think that either you need to take the stance that producing patches rapidly and often is a good thing, or an indicator of the software being bad in the first place, be it Windows or Linux or other. YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!!
("Stable" EGCS releases are fine. CVS snapshots older than 2-3 weeks ago seem to work, also, but no guarantee that the binaries'll actually do anything useful.)
I've reported the bug to the EGCS developers, as internal errors are definitely a compiler bug, EVEN IF it's also a kernel bug.
Having written all this, I'm now wondering if I'm the only Slashdotian insane enough to use bleeding-edge software compiled with other bleeding-edge software on production machines...
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Wait wait wait, I know. You and Mr. "Financial Responsibility" are buddies right?
"From of old, there are not lacking things that have attained Oneness." - Lao Tzu
http://xcyber.d2g.com/linux-2.4.1.tar.gz
xcyber """"""Complexity for the sake of complexity is not a solution, neither is simplicity for the sake of simplicity
2.4.1 includes new features, like a journalling filesystem, not just fixes for existing stuff. Also, 2.4 (and 2.2) works a HELL of a lot better on my hardware (ASUS A7V + Athlon + GeForce 2 GTS) than Windows 2000 did (which would lockup hard within an hour, every time). I had to install new drivers for everything plus service pack 1 to even get it remotely stable. Of course, on the same hardware, I can run repeating concurrent kernel compiles with -j4 and not see a single crash for a week.
Plus, I didn't even have to pay for Linux.
Hello, you are confusing the 2.3.x series here.
Kernel 2.4.x are definitely not development
according to the usual model.
- popular applications from IE to Office regularly "update" the user's operating system to whatever was latest at the time that product was released.
So, if you install Office 97 on Windows 2000 does that give you Windows 1997?
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Subject says it all... then again, I've got enough free space and Partition Magic that I could divide up my existing ext2 partition and format it as reiser.
get it from:
/ v2.4/
ftp://ftp.COUNTRYCODE.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel
Where country code is your country, eg uk for uk, us for the us, nl for holland etc etc.
I everyone keeps downloading from the main site then it creates problems for the mirrors, which believe me is a bad thing
--
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
An AC blathered:
Real men use 2.2
Real men use 1.3!!
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
The next devel series will be 2.5.x; 3.1.x will be after 3.0.x. 1.3.x led to 2.0, remember.
- ppp still doesn't work on my laptop using a >2.4 kernel (i *know* how to compile it, thanks.)
- my network card is still unrecognized
- my sound chip (Maestro2E) start whizzing when the laptop becomes hotter than usual...
- I don't have some free space to reiserfs-ize my root
and...my 2.2.18 rocks damn' well...
Why should I change ?
To discover the evil of technological inflation ?
No, thanks, I am not missing the windows community ?
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Do you really want to send everyone to kernel.org?
Really, it's not that hard to go to ftp..kernel.org instead is it?
2.4.1 is for the thrillseekers and developers, 2.4.2 will be the next update intended for end users.
Wrong. 2.4.x is the stable kernel series. The even/odd rule only applies to the first minor number, not to the minor minor. All 2.3.x are devel and all 2.4.x are stable.