Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kernel 2.5.3 Released

Posted by michael on from the we-don't-need-no-steenkin'-patches dept.

cybercyst writes: "You know the drill... Lets go hit those servers!" As usual, see kernel.org for the download or the changelog. Anyone using 2.5 for anything except testing?

3 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. Use The Mirrors, Luke! by ekrout · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Use The Mirrors, Luke!

    Please refrain from flooding kernel.org every damn time you post that a new kernel is released. You should link directly to the list of mirrors. As has been said before, anyone who would even venture on compiling and using something like this could easily find the appropriate folder on an FTP mirror from which to download the new source.

    That is all.
    - Eric Krout

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
  2. New kernel? Time to whore. by dimator · · Score: 3, Redundant
    Let's run down the list. I'll combine my whoring into one succinct post:
    • Please, people, use the mirrors! It's only polite, don't /. the main server! (+5 Informative)
    • Please, people, download patches to save bandwidth! I'm so smart and cool! (+5 Informative)
    • Please, people, don't use developmental kernels in production environments. These are only for testing! (+5 Interesting)
    • Since when is /. about software updates? That's what freshmeat is for! I hate slashdot! (+5 Insightful)
    • You assholes that complain about software update stories on /. piss me off. DON'T CLICK ON THE FUCKING LINK, AND DON'T POST TO THE DISCUSSION! (+5 Insightful)


    Did I miss anything?
    --
    python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
  3. Re:Kernel development by taniwha · · Score: 2, Redundant
    Why does the kernel go through stable and then unstable forks? Can't it always be a stable build, like with Windows?



    Because Linux development is don't in public in front of everyone, The unstable portion of Windows development is done behind closed doors and not seen by the public (given Windows past tendancy to crash when sneezed on it's arguable that some portion is really done in public).



    That's the difference between open source and closed source - you get to see the stuff as it's being developed and if you want you can get involved and do some yourself. On the other hand if you only want to use the stable versions stick with the even numbered releases (2.0, 2.2, 2.4).