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.
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)
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.
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)
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.