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)
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
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 (=
I was talking to an MSCE buddy of mine yesterday, and he swore up and down he is running Linux 7.1 now.
pre8:
- ReiserFS merge
Nice, nice, nice. Finally they agree.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
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
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.