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.

Comments

Ahem!

[Anonymous Coward]

This just in...

Small drives.

[sharkey]

It's not the size, it's how you use it.

--

Re:The new kernel

[snowbike]

The current Linux codebase is good, but for it to be great, the developers must stop patting eachother on the back...

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?

Re:This kernel numbering is confusing

[slamb]

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.

Re:...And A Patch Close Behind It.

[Lizard_King]

From the Alan's email to LWN:

• o Fix 48 misspellings of interrupt (André Dahlqvist)
• o Fix 20 misspellings of successful (André Dahlqvist)
• o Fix 11 misspellings of suppress (André Dahlqvist)
• o Fix 46 misspellings of address (André Dahlqvist)
• o Fix 26 misspellings of receive (André Dahlqvist)
• o Fix 7 misspellings of acquire (André Dahlqvist)
• o Fix 4 misspellings of unneccessary (André Dahlqvist)
• o Fix 13 misspellings of until (André Dahlqvist)

André Dahlqvist is fusing the line between English major and CS major.

Re:New 2.4.x Compilation issues under Debian unsta

[garett_spencley]

You have a new version of binutils installed that handles the -o flag differently. You need to edit /usr/src/linux/arch/i386/boot/Makefile and change all -oformat to --oformat.

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

Re:This kernel numbering is confusing

[Decado]

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?

This kernel numbering is confusing

[typical geek]

Why can't Linux just name it, like Linux 4, Service Pack 2?