Slashdot Mirror
Kernel 2.5.3 Released
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?
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Are you kidding me? I'm using it to browse the internet right n-
New people shouldn't be upgrading their kernel...... ESPECIALLY to an unstable development one.
If you don't know how to do it you shouldn't be doing it anyway.
Number of Maintainer Patches Dropped By Linus in 2.5.3:
5
10
30
69
CowboyNeal!
Why does the kernel go through stable and then unstable forks? Can't it always be a stable build, like with Windows?
--Metrollica
(1) If you get any link errors when compiling your new kernel which refer to lock_kernel and unlock_kernel. Just add #include to whatever files generate the complaints.
:).
(2) If you have any SCSI drives that were broken because of the Block IO Layer changes, then this kernel most likely fixes them. Apparently, the "various scsi driver fixes" includes the parallel port zip driver (ppa.c) for any who care
w o r l d w i d e w e b e r
Ok ok ok - we all know that kernel.org's got some cashflow problems, so people PLEASE use the mirrors and patches!! To apply the patch, from the older version, CD in, then use patch -p1 kernel-2.5.3.patch (or whatever.) Make sure to make clean first also, just for paranoia. Anyway, have fun.
--joshua
P.S. Not redundant, no one's said this yet.
"I just stopped using Windows and now you tell me to use Mirrors?" - said Aunt Tillie, just before compiling 2.5.3 kernel.
Really, I still do not understand what the point of patch-release announcements are on /.! This what freshmeat.net is for. This is not major news - this is trivial for everyone except those who are experimenting with the new kernel or developing for it. That's a very tiny subset of the /. population.
No, Slashdot is what Slashdot is. No more, no less. You have some preconceived notion of what Slashdot *should* be. If you want something else, go somewhere else, because SLASHDOT ALWAYS HAS AND ALWAYS WILL(probably) REPORT ON SOFTWARE. Yes, even patchlevel releases. Instead of trying to tell Slashdot what you want, and the rest of the people what you think they *should* want, how about you go and find a site which caters to your tastes and your interests?
Barclay family motto:
Aut agere aut mori.
(Either action or death.)
Really, I still do not understand what the point of patch-release announcements are on /.!
I have to agree, but only because this is a *testing* kernel. For all stable releases (ie: 2.4.x for now), I think announcments of new versions is a cool thing - it allows the much much larger base of linux 2.4.x users (as compared to 2.5.x) to discuss the new features/caveats/etc of the latest stable kernel.
The Free desktop that Just Works
Note:
mirrors.kernel.org is NOT the list of mirrors of the kernel, it's the list of mirrors of other sites.
For the kernel, you want www.kernel.org/mirrors/ to find your local mirror of kernel.org (which is usually www.COUNTRYCODE.kernel.org).
--Xandu
> 2.4.xx Current stable release series. (Well, almost current.)
(Well, almost stable.)
Can't argue with the term -series- though.
If you don't know how to do it you shouldn't be doing it anyway
Riiiight. That's probably why you're still a virgin
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
Yeah, I know, everybody and their mother whines about, "Why does slashdot post new kernel announcements, wah, wah wah!" And I'm going to do the same, but hopefully I'm a litte more constructive.
What I'd like to see in these announcements is a description of what's changed. Not the changelists; I want the executive summary. Something like "New kernel 2.5.3 released; includes fixes for the FCI bus problems of 2.5.2, as well as the new virtual monitor support!" That would be immensely useful to those of us who don't want to install every kernel and keep track of every new feature, but do like to stay aware of the bigger trends.
P.S. There is no such thing as the FCI bus or virtual monitor support, as far as I know, it was just an example. But if you're smart enough to come up with the executive summary for this release, please, post it. This time and every time.
I hope you moderators appreciate this is just this guy's idea, and not actually the current release versioning system used for 2.5. The fact that he made 2.5.3 bold would lead you to believe otherwise.
:-) (Interested parties can send me email and I'll mail a copy of the writeup...)
Actually, it was my idea (posted to the linux-kernel mailing list on May 10, 2000), but the other poster above didn't bother to attribute credit for it. (Although I think it was really more of a sarcastic comment on 2.5.3's stability, the way that section was bolded.)
That was an idea I came up with off the top of my head, looking for a way to move the "should be stable but oops, not" kernels out of the "stable" series into the "development" series (thinking of 2.2.0 for example) -- by adding a fourth digit to indicate the status, so that release candidates could get production testing before getting branded as "stable". Once a fourth digit was added, I figured that I might as well try to fill in the other numbers with vague-but-useful state indicators for earlier stages of development. That post to linux-kernel was my first attempt, off the top of my head.
I developed this idea further, in response to some of the discussion on linux-kernel about my idea, but in the end I decided against using it. My brother convinced me that encoding this much meaning into numeric identifiers required a lot of advance knowledge about the system to make any sense of the version numbers, and harried system administrators wouldn't take the time to learn.
I finally decided to use a different approach, where "stable" releases are all-numeric numbers (e.g. 1.0.0) while "development" releases always contain an alphabetic intended-state tag (e.g. 1.0.0.beta.1) and discarding the even/odd notion from Linux. This way, development versions are more self-identifying, and release candidates (suitable for production testing) would have an "rc" tag (e.g. 1.0.0.rc.3).
The idea is that the "stable" release (e.g. 1.0.0) would be completely identical to the last "rc" release (e.g. 1.0.0.rc.3) except for the version number change. If there's a temptation to add "one last patch" (no matter how minor), make a new "rc" version and let it make the rounds first. This would avoid embarassments like 2.2.0 and certain 2.4.x releases, which are marked "stable" by their version number, but were quite unstable in practice...
I tried to include my writeup of the all-numeric system I ended up with before I gave up on it, but Slashdot's "lameness filter" rejected it. Maybe it's a sign.
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay