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.
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.
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.
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: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...
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.
Signature on kernel invalid??
by
iamsure
·
· Score: 3
I have now downloaded from ftp.us.kernel.org, and from ftp.kernel.org.
-- --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
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
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.
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...
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.
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)
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
People, please use the mirrors!
by
phaze3000
·
· Score: 5
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
I was talking to an MSCE buddy of mine yesterday, and he swore up and down he is running Linux 7.1 now.
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
'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
2.4.x uses netfilter for packet mangling. Here is the relevant portion of the FAQ: http://netfilter.kernelnotes.org/netfilter-faq-1.h tml#ss1.4.
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.
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
pre8:
- ReiserFS merge
Nice, nice, nice. Finally they agree.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
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
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.
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...
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.
("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)
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
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.