Slashdot Mirror
Kernel 2.4.2 Released
Three weeks after 2.4.1 hit the streets, 2.4.2 is now available. Here's the Changelog, and here's the download link that I know you're looking for.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
This just in...
hippocracy, n. The use of one hippo-like status (i.e., fat, bloated, and heavy) in the market to squish competitors. see also "Microsoft"
:)
hawk, who knows better than to flame spilling, but this was just to juicy
It's not the size, it's how you use it.
--
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
If you'd prefer that they slow down the release cycle and include more changes in each release, then just install every other kernel.
Staying on the bleeding edge does sting, that's why they call it that...
Kevin Fox
--
Kevin Fox
Glad to hear that you are going to do the rewrite. The source is all there. Are you setting up your efforts on sourceforge or will you just announce it view usenet ala Linus?
.technomancer
.technomancer
All those things don't well, if at all, so a compressed filesystem would just be redundant. The exegz thing might help some, but stripping your binaries is probably just about as good without the runtime performance hit. And I'd think that even if you compressed your whole root partition with a scheme like this, the savings would be negligible but everything you did would require packing/unpacking stuff so the whole system would be generally slower.
With the ever expanding size of hard drives, I think this is a pretty small issue.
Yes, I realize that maybe single floppy distros and embedded devices may find this kind of thing useful, but I'm talking about the other 95% of the linux community here.
Free Online Woodworking Resources Directory
From the changelog:
-pre2:
- Russell King: fix serious IDE multimode write bug!
If you have IDE hard drives, I recommend you pop 2.4.2 into place purdy quick. Write bug == bad.
--
Buy windows 2000 and you have to download 1 service pack and thats means its a terrible OS that needs constant patching. Download linux 2.4.0 then 2.4.1 and then 2.4.2 in less than half that timespan and rather than meaning that 2.4.0 was a terrible OS that needs constant patching it is an innovative OS with a rapid turnaround. Am I the only one who spots the hipocracy here?
I see no hypocrisy.
First, when I make a judgement like that about a Microsoft product, it's not because of the number of service packs. I realize that all software of that complexity has bugs. It's instead that their software doesn't work well for me, even after applying all the service packs. Their service packs just don't seem to fix all the important problems for me, no matter how many I apply. For example, I've patched my Windows 98 system to the latest Windows Update stuff, but I'm still having some weird problems with Internet Explorer.
Second, Linux x.y.z releases are not just bugfix releases. In this case, it probably is...x.y.[1-5] typically are. But there are many new features introduced in point releases. 2.2.18 (or was it 2.2.19?), for example, backported USB support to the 2.2 series. I see a lot of important new features introduced in new Linux point releases, which I don't see in Windows service packs. Having a specific x.y just means the basic architecture is constant, not that the feature set is.
Third, as someone else mentioned, you don't need to upgrade to a new kernel revision to fix a bug. You have the source code, and you have the full patches. If you just want to fix one bug, you can do that. You don't have that option with Microsoft code, since it's not open-source.
Looking at some of these other posts you'd think it were a bad thing to have bug fixes and updates in a timely fashion.
until 2.5.2 (or 3.0.3)
Je t'aime Stéphanie
André Dahlqvist is fusing the line between English major and CS major.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
If you are truly being serious, the reason is because a kernel number makes it MUCH easier to understand the sort of kernel you are using.
The first number is a major code change, fundamental in nature. After about 7 years we are now up to 2.x.x. The second number also shows major revisions, but of a less fundamental variety than the first number. An odd second number denotes a development series, not intended to be used for production computers. This is why most users went from 2.0.x to 2.2.x to 2.4.x, because 2.1.x and 2.3.x were development versions. When the development version is deemed stable enough to be used in some production platforms, it moves to an even second number, like the recent 2.4.0. However, the 2.2.x kernel series is still being maintained for use as an ultra-stable kernel, while the 2.4.x is more cutting-edge for the latest hardware support and performance.
The third number indicates a small change, usually bugfixes but some small amounts of new features supported. When going to purchase new hardware it is easy to tell if you have a "2.2.0 or later kernel".
Finally, a service pack generally implies a large set of bugfixes, as Microsoft had somewhere around 7 (maybe 8) for NT 4. The Linux Kernel version system allows for a few small changes to be made at every release, decreasing the waiting time for users to wait for a desired bugfix or feature (instead of months for a new service pack).
If my overgeneralization of the Linux kernel was incorrect, my apologies, but I think an overall understading of how the Linux Kernel numbering system works is important for those who don't know yet.
"The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent." --Carl Sagan
Aparently this has been known about for a couple weeks and a patch has been made but for some reason didn't make it in 2.4.2
--
Garett
Because the linux advocates constantly criticise microsofts service packs means of upgrading. Buy windows 2000 and you have to download 1 service pack and thats means its a terrible OS that needs constant patching. Download linux 2.4.0 then 2.4.1 and then 2.4.2 in less than half that timespan and rather than meaning that 2.4.0 was a terrible OS that needs constant patching it is an innovative OS with a rapid turnaround.
Am I the only one who spots the hipocracy here?
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
Ahhhh, but when the HURD is heard from, will the herd keep HURD from being heard? Word.
--
-- Geof F. Morris
Alan Cox is doing that voodoo he do do: LWN report on 2.4.2ac1. Also, the ftp link.
More on 2.4.2 from the LWN is here.
I speak for people with small drives everywhere when I say: When will the kernel support default compression of filesystems.
Use gzexe - which needs no special kernal magic, or apply the ext2compr patch to the kernel, which isn't that great.
Does my bum look big in this?
Why can't Linux just name it, like Linux 4, Service Pack 2?