Slashdot Mirror
Linux 2.4.19 Released
Adrian Voinea writes "The latest stable Linux kernel (2.4.19) is out. The somewhat massive changelog has the details. The patch file is here and the full source is here. If possible use a mirror."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
First post, bitches!
This post for all logged-in ACs! Yeah!
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
-- The Linux Kernel Team
This is earth shattering news! I think I need a beer to calm down.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Within the software industry, the recent clash of source-code licensing philosophies has proponents of commercial software and open-source advocates frequently at loggerheads. Both commercial and open-source software models, however, have demonstrated value for various sectors of the software market, which has determined that multiple licensing and distribution models should coexist in healthy competition. The market, in fact, is driving both camps toward a middle ground where the most beneficial aspects of both philosophies are embraced.
In May 2001, Microsoft® responded with a Shared Source Initiative (SSI) to provide source access to a broad range of customers, partners, independent developers, researchers and other interested individuals, while preserving the intellectual property rights that have sustained innovation throughout the industry over the past quarter-century. The SSI framework supports a spectrum of licensing programs, each tailored to the source-access needs of a specific constituent community. Meanwhile, prominent open-source developers began to adopt certain commercial distribution methods in their own pragmatic migration toward the middle. These developers commonly rely on open-source licenses, like those based on the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) license, that place few if any restrictions on licensees' subsequent use of licensed source code, including its use in commercial software development.
Free software distributors, by contrast, use the highly restrictive GPL, which was created by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in furtherance of its philosophy that software should not be subject to ownership, and thus that commercial software is inherently immoral. The GPL governs distribution of some popular free software, including Linux. The GPL may be beneficial to noncommercial developers and certain licensees in other contexts, but several of the license's terms and uncertainties should raise red flags for commercial developers considering its use.
Because many businesses may not understand the GPL and its potential implications, Microsoft offers this document as a checklist and to provide important background information. Most or all of the following questions will be familiar to those who have examined the GPL. Many of them have generated considerable debate even among open-source and free-software advocates. Comments in this document are based on GPL Version 2, Lesser General Public License (LGPL) Version 2.1 and the GNU GPL FAQ page (www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html).
The GPL is a complicated agreement. To understand your potential rights and obligations, you must interpret the various provisions of the license and apply them to your particular circumstances. Microsoft recommends that you obtain legal counsel as appropriate. This document does not and cannot offer legal advice.
1. Have your lawyers read the GPL (and the LGPL)? Because the GPL is so frequently misunderstood and because it attempts, under certain circumstances, to impose significant obligations on licensees and their intellectual property rights, no responsible business should use GPL software without ensuring that its lawyers have read the license and explained the business' rights and obligations. They should also review and explain the Lesser General Public License, or LGPL, a related license that is sometimes used with open source libraries.
2. How are you using GPL software and what obligations does it impose? The obligations associated with the GPL vary substantially depending upon the way in which GPL code is used. Even limited or relatively obscure uses (e.g., including a few lines of GPL code in a commercial product or linking directly or indirectly to a GPL library) may have a dramatic effect on your legal rights and obligations. To understand the potential implications of the GPL, you need to have a detailed understanding of your use of GPL code. Basing any analysis upon a superficial understanding may present serious risks.
3. How does your use of GPL software affect your intellectual property rights? One of the most significant impacts of the GPL is its potential effect on your intellectual property rights. The GPL is widely referred to as 'viral' because it attempts to subject independently-created code (and associated intellectual property) to the terms of the GPL if it is used in certain ways together with GPL code (see Sections 2 and 3 of the GPL). For example, a business that combines and distributes GPL code with its own proprietary code may be obligated to share with the rest of the world valuable intellectual property (including patent) rights in both code bases on a royalty free basis. Other uses of GPL code may also create obligations for the user. It is important to perform a careful legal and technical review of this issue before using GPL software.
4. What if you are simply a customer, acquiring GPL software from other businesses? Does the GPL have any effect on your rights and obligations? Section 0 of the GPL says "[a]ctivities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted." So, a customer who only runs the Program should have no obligations to the author of the code under the GPL. As discussed below, however, such a customer also has no rights from the author (e.g., no assurance that the code is even free from "known" copyright infringement problems) and may have liabilities to third parties. If, on the other hand, the customer's use of GPL code involves even limited modification, copying or distribution of the code, the GPL arguably does impose obligations to the author, discussed above and below. In assessing this possibility, customers should carefully consider what the GPL means by "copying, modifying and distribution."
5. Can you develop applications for a GPL program, like Linux, without subjecting those applications to the GPL? This is a particularly important question. The answer will almost certainly depend upon a detailed analysis of the way in which the application was developed and distributed and will be subject to caveats regarding the interpretation and enforceability of the GPL. For example, the analysis will presumably involve a careful review of your development team's exposure to and use of GPL code during the development process, especially whether the application incorporated any such code or was otherwise derived from it. The analysis would also likely consider what libraries are used; how are they used (e.g., statically linked or dynamically linked); whether they, in turn, link to other libraries; and which licenses (GPL or LGPL) govern all of these various libraries. Similarly, the analysis would probably consider what header files are used; whether they, in turn, include other headers; and which licenses govern these various headers. In addition, the analysis would presumably consider whether the application is distributed with GPL code and, if so, how it is distributed and by whom.
6. Can distribution of your code with GPL code require you to license your code under the GPL? Have you combined your own code with code licensed under the GPL? The GPL attempts to address these questions directly. Section 2 of the GPL says that identifiable sections of a work that are not derived from a GPL program and that "can be reasonably considered independent and separate" are not subject to the GPL when distributed as separate works. But if these separate sections are distributed "as part of a whole which is a work based on" a GPL program, then this distribution of the "work as a whole" is subject to the GPL. Section 2 also says that a "mere aggregation of another work not based on the [GPL] Program on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License." A licensee is left with the difficult task of deciding whether a particular combination is a "work as a whole" (GPL infection apparently intended) or a "mere aggregation" (GPL infection disclaimed).
7. If your software becomes "infected" by the GPL, do you have to give it away for free? Section 3 of the GPL says that you can copy and distribute a GPL program (or a work based on such a program) in object code or executable form, subject to several restrictions. You are supposed to make the corresponding source code available, for example, by including the source code with the object code or offering to distribute it to any third party (Section 3). Section 1 says that you "may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy," but Section 2 says that you "must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from [a GPL] Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." The net effect is, apparently, that you are able to charge a fee for your software, but that right is significantly undercut by your obligation to give others (including your competitors) the right to distribute your software for free.
8. Are your obligations under the GPL "flexible" or "proportional" to your use of GPL code? Suppose Business A uses a few hundred lines of GPL code in its existing 500,000-line proprietary program and makes copies for its own employees or distributes ten copies of the modified program as a collective work. Suppose Business B combines 500,000 lines of GPL code with an existing 1000-line proprietary program and distributes 500,000 copies of the modified program as a collective work. The GPL may be read as to require both businesses to share the source code for their modified programs (including their existing commercial programs) and allow royalty-free redistribution of those programs. This is true despite the potentially dramatic differences in the volume, value and copies of the GPL code used.
9. Do you have all of the rights required to use GPL code? Could your use of GPL code cause you to infringe on the intellectual property rights associated with code you have licensed from others? The seemingly obvious answer to the first question is yes because those rights are provided under the GPL. The correct answer, however, may require more careful analysis. If, for example, you plan to combine and distribute GPL code with pre-existing code, the "viral" nature of the GPL may require you to provide source code for the pre-existing code to all third parties and license others to use it on a royalty-free basis (see Section 2). Unfortunately, if you licensed some of the pre-existing code from a third party, you may not even have access to the source code, much less the right to license it to the rest of the world on a royalty-free basis under the terms of the GPL.
10. Do you have any existing obligations that might preclude your use of GPL software? Could your use of GPL code put you in breach of existing contractual obligations? As noted above, the use of GPL code with code licensed from another party could, under certain circumstances, arguably obligate you to sublicense the other party's code under the GPL. If you expressly agreed not to attempt to sublicense the other party's code, you should consider whether your use of the GPL code presents a risk that breaches your earlier contract. Even if no breach occurs, the GPL includes provisions that may make it impossible for licensees to retain both their GPL rights and rights under other agreements. For example, Section 7 of the GPL says that if "conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this license, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all." Suppose Business A has developed a program using trade secret rights that were licensed from Business B under an agreement that prohibited their disclosure. Now assume that A uses GPL code in a way that "infects" its program. Section 7 apparently says that use of GPL code in such a program is impermissible. This places A in an untenable situation: unless it persuades B to divulge its trade secrets to the world, A must cease distribution of its program. This may be true even if A's use of GPL code is minimal.
11. Have you considered the risk that GPL code might infringe on third party intellectual property rights? Although it is always difficult for a business to ensure that acquired products do not infringe on third-party intellectual property rights, the risks associated with the use of GPL software may be substantially higher than those associated with commercial software. For example, given the distributed nature of open source development, you should understand what controls, if any, you have in place to screen unlicensed code or trade secret information from inclusion in the GPL program. This view is perhaps reinforced by the fact that Section 11 of the GPL expressly disclaims any warranties, including presumably a warranty that the program is free from infringements of third-party copyrights or trade secrets known to the contributor. You should also ask yourself if GPL developers may conclude that this disclaimer makes it okay to distribute code under the GPL when they know they don't have the rights required to do so. Developers of commercial software, in contrast, typically have procedures, contractual obligations, and a substantial financial stake in minimizing potential infringements.
12. What happens if an intellectual property owner, who claims that your use of GPL code infringes its intellectual property rights, sues you? As noted above, Section 11 suggests that you are "on your own" with respect to defense of the suit and payment for damages.
13. What is the extent of your liability for GPL-related infringements? Several provisions of the GPL may be read as requiring a GPL licensee to effectively sublicense its rights to the rest of the world (e.g., Section 2, relating to the modification and distribution of GPL works). GPL licensees should ask themselves whether, and to what extent, they might be responsible for the actions of their sub-licensees. For example, suppose Business A distributes a modified copy of GPL code to Businesses B, C, and D, and each of them further distributes 1000 copies. If Business A is sued for patent infringement relating to its use of GPL software, the patent owner might claim that the business is liable for direct infringement based upon the three copies distributed to Businesses B, C, and D and is further liable for direct, contributory, or induced infringement by the 3000 additional copies distributed by these businesses (and, of course, any and all later distributions by such businesses and their downstream sub-licensees). While actual liability would depend upon a host of factual issues, if Business A has deeper pockets than the other businesses, it should not be surprised to find plaintiff's counsel pursuing such an approach and claiming theoretically unlimited damages caused by Business A's limited initial distribution.
14. Can the author of a GPL program 'unilaterally' withdraw your right to distribute the program? Section 8 of the GPL gives "the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License" the right to preclude distribution in certain countries based on patents or interface copyrights. It is not clear that a licensee has any right to object to this restriction, which may be solely within the discretion of the original copyright holder. It is also not clear whether this restriction can be imposed retroactively, although Section 8 does say, "this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License." Companies relying on GPL code should carefully consider the potential impact such a geographical restriction could have on their business.
15. Can you use GPL tools in the development of your own software without subjecting your software to the GPL? As noted above, the GPL is sometimes referred to as being 'viral' because it attempts to subject related third-party code and intellectual property to the GPL. People concerned about this aspect of the GPL are probably careful about modifying GPL programs or combining their code with GPL code, but they may assume that their use of GPL tools cannot 'infect' the software they are developing. While this is probably true in many cases, it is not necessarily a safe assumption. For example, the 'Bison' parser developed by Richard Stallman, Robert Corbett and Wilfred Hansen was licensed under the GPL for some time before users realized that the software they were developing with the tool was arguably subject to the GPL. The potential exposure resulted from the parser's inclusion of incidental GPL material in the tool's output. In response to this problem, Bison version 1.24 and later was distributed with a 'special exception' regarding output files. The implication is that businesses concerned about the possible infection of their software by the GPL should make sure they consider: what, if any, GPL tools are being used by their developers; how those tools are used; and the possibility that such uses might subject their own code to the GPL.
16. If the GPL requires you to 'contribute' your modifications to GPL code to 'the community,' are you sure that your competitors are doing the same? Assuming that two competitors are making similar use of GPL code, their obligations under the GPL should be the same. There are, however, a number of scenarios to consider. Some competitors may not understand their obligations under the GPL and, for that reason, might not share their improvements with competitors. Other competitors' interpretation of the GPL might lead them to conclude that they have no obligation because they might believe the GPL is unenforceable in its entirety. Some competitors may intentionally ignore their obligations under the GPL to obtain a competitive advantage, relying on a variety of factors to avoid compliance. These factors might include obscuring object code to hide use of GPL code and the strength and enforcement of intellectual property laws in the country where they are doing business.
17. Does the GPL present any special challenges for businesses developing or distributing products with embedded software? The GPL does not expressly impose any 'special' obligations on embedded software businesses, but embedded businesses should consider whether the GPL presents any unique risks based upon scenarios common to the embedded product space. For example, the manufacturer of a hardware system that includes some embedded GPL software and some of the manufacturer's own proprietary software may find it particularly important to carefully assess whether the GPL and proprietary software form a 'mere aggregation' (GPL infection disclaimed under Section 2); a 'collective work' (GPL infection apparently intended); or something else altogether. Some embedded software developers, such as Caldera and Wind River, have publicly expressed concerns about the risks associated with the GPL.
18. Are your software developers aware of the many development-related issues that may affect GPL risks and obligations? Are you asking (or allowing) them to act as your legal counsel and are you willing to accept that risk? Are you 'betting your business' on informal or anonymous interpretations of the GPL posted on the Internet? As noted by the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the potential implications of the GPL on software development ultimately depend on the way in which judges will interpret provisions of the GPL. A host of relatively detailed, development-related questions are also likely to be critical. You should probably make sure your developers are asking themselves a number of questions, including: Given the subtle nature of some of the legal issues presented by the GPL, you should also make sure your developers know when to consult legal counsel regarding any potential risks presented by a particular development activity. All businesses would be well advised to avoid taking actions based upon general 'understandings' of the GPL that are not based on a careful reading of the agreement itself.
19. Who can you go to if you have a question regarding the GPL's interpretation, want to clarify your risks under the GPL, or amend your obligations? The GPL was developed under the auspices of the FSF. The FSF is not, however, necessarily the owner of any and all intellectual property rights embodied in particular programs licensed under the GPL. Section 10 recognizes this by suggesting that a GPL licensee could write to a program's author (or authors) for permission to distribute the program under different terms. In some cases, no single person or entity may own all of these property rights. As a result, a prospective (or existing) GPL licensee may find it impractical, if not impossible, to negotiate a desired change in its rights and obligations or even obtain a clarification of those rights and obligations. Even if a licensee were somehow able to identify key contributors and reach agreement with all of them regarding a desired change or clarification, presumably those contributors would be unwilling or unable to represent and warrant that they had the entire right and title required to do so.
20. Are you using any software governed by the Lesser General Public License (LGPL) and, if so, how does that license affect your rights and obligations? The LGPL was developed by the FSF to give library developers an alternative to the GPL. Specifically, although the FSF generally discourages use of the LGPL, it notes that "using the Library GPL permits use of the library in commercial programs." The LGPL retains the 'viral' provisions of the GPL in the context of modifications to an LGPL library (Section 2). But a different set of obligations are imposed when code is linked to an LGPL library (Sections 5 and 6). If you are developing programs that link to LGPL libraries you should review and understand these obligations. You should also check whether the LGPL libraries used, in turn, link to other libraries and especially consider the implications if the LGPL library links to a GPL library.
21. Does the use of GPL software reduce the acquisition value of your company (as a start-up) or a particular business unit (as a spin-off)? As noted above, the GPL attempts, under certain circumstances, to subject licensees' code and related intellectual property to the terms of the GPL (see, e.g., Section 3). Once your software is 'infected' by the GPL, it is not clear whether and how this process can be reversed. So, while GPL code may seem like an inexpensive, convenient and useful way for a start-up to develop a new product quickly, it may also have costly and long-term consequences for the start-up. Parties interested in acquiring the business are likely to conclude, as a part of any acquisition due diligence, that the business has already effectively given away most of the commercial value in its code.
22. Does your use of GPL code present any issues re shareholder value and exposure to suit? In the context of initial public offerings, at least some businesses based upon GPL software have concluded that such software introduces risks that should be disclosed as part of the offering. These risks include: the companies 'inability' to offer warranties and indemnities because the code is developed by independent parties over whom the offering business has no control or supervision; the uncertain future of the code base (will further development occur and, if so, in what direction); the availability of the same code from other sources for free; and concerns about negative reactions from the open source community. (These issues are discussed in the '10Ks' of several of the publicly traded companies that distribute GPL programs). If you are beginning to use GPL code, you should ask whether this presents similar risks to your business.
23. Do you have a process for reviewing and approving prospective uses of GPL software? Are you willing to use precious developer resources required to assess the impact of prospective uses of GPL code that you will depend on? Most businesses that are engaged in software development establish procedures to avoid tainting their development process with software that is subject to other people's intellectual property rights. Although GPL code is often described as 'free,' as noted above it may impose severe obligations on users and is perhaps even more deserving of a company-wide process regarding review and approval before use.
24. Do you have or need any special procedures regarding potential GPL issues created by your licensing of third-party software and or acquisitions of software? Given the potential effect that the GPL may have on code and intellectual property acquired by (or licensed into) a company, it may make sense for businesses to develop procedures to ensure that such acquisitions and licenses are reviewed for GPL issues. For example, many companies have established 'due diligence' procedures to help them identify and evaluate potential issues associated with the acquisition of businesses, product lines, and intellectual property rights. Companies pursuing software-related acquisitions or investments should probably consider whether their due diligence procedures should be updated to specifically address GPL-related issues.
What do you mean, "if possible use a mirror.". Use a mirror. The only time it isn't possible is when, say, the main server gets slashdotted and there ARE no mirrors.
When will you ever learn?
Meanwhile, SP3 for Windows 2000 is released, implementing the new "Set Program Access and Defaults" feature. Unsurprisingly, Slashdot is silent.
Can anybody here summarize any important changes that went on between 2.4.18 and 2.4.19? This changelog is just a ton of bug fixes between prereleases. Did they do anything interesting with it?
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Bet this new Linux has more Exploits in it than Mac OS 9x,8x.
In fact accoding to BugTraq, no Mac OS9x or 8x server has EVER been rooted,defaced,broken into, etc EVER.
There are many technical reasons why the MacOS (not the unix os x) is the most secure OS in history for server usage.
Imagine.... not ONE exploit EVER.
Even the "default" OpenBSD has had nearly 2 in just the last couple months.
now I can break Debian GNU/Linux AGAIN trying to upgrade to a modern kernel.
With all the hassles, Debian is still the best distro.
SECOND POST wooo! Now that I've said that, it'll be third.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
http://atlantis1.prolixium.com/~prox/proserv/linux /kernel/v2.4/linux-2.4.19.tar.gz. it's 100mbit. so give kernel.org a break...
8========D (_|_)
Check it out here - http://scoop.ftso.org/
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If it's the latter, can any of you linux gurus tell me what is the current "accepted" solution for making backups. Not archives or images, backups.
For those of you who are going to say dump works fine on 2.4, please read this message from Linus Torvalds. I keep hoping he'll change his mind though, at least until a viable alternative arises.
When 2.4.18 came out, i thought to myself "well i'll just wait till 2.4.19 comes out to switch to 2.4, shouldn't be more than a month or so."
Since then i've had to renew my drivers license three times.
Longest . . . update . . . ever!
"The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw."
Warning! last minute changes to inode.c!
Why won't:
/dev/rmt0
find . -print |cpio -ocBv
or some variation work for you?
deadonarrival home # uname -a
Linux deadonarrival.entala.co.uk 2.4.19-gentoo-r7 #8 SMP Thu Aug 1 00:02:37 CEST 2002 i686 AuthenticAMD
Because, of course, Gentoo comes with 2.4.19.
right on the comment page about new linux kernel! hahaha!.
PS.
Q. what did rob's wife say to him when he tried to make dinner?
A. Lameness filter: food should not be blue
Insert standard Darn-And-I-Just-Finished-Downloading-The-Last-One- Yesterday wisecrack...
Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
ncftp ftp.us.kernel.org ... .config ../kernel-image-2.4.19_home.1_i386.deb ../alsa-modules-2.4.18_0.9+0beta12+3+p0+home1_i386 .deb
tar -xvzf linux-2.4.19.tar.gz
cd linux
cp ~/kernel/configs/2.4.18
make oldconfig
su
make-kpkg --revision home.1 kernel_image
make-kpkg modules_image # for alsa, nvidia-glx, plex86
dpkg -i
dpkg -i
etc.
Thanks for the good work, Manoj!
Can anybody here summarize any important changes that went on between 2.4.18 and 2.4.19? This changelog is just a ton of bug fixes between prereleases. Did they do anything interesting with it?
..."
This is exactly the thing I'd like to see someone make. A simple list of notable changes for the average kernel-compiling Linux user. I've been wanting such a list for several years now, but have never seen one.
Something in the form of, "If you which to use hardware X with option Y, you may wish to upgrade, as this version adds beta support for it. If you use option Z you should definately upgrade, there are many bugfixes.
Is there any kind of ChangeLog summary available anywhere? And if not, why? I shouldn't think it would be such a big deal for someone with some knowledge of the kernel.
I doubt, therefore I may be.
for about three minutes i sat wondering: who the fuck do you buy your hardware from that actually *license* their drivers, and requires you to *renew* them? I didn't know Microsoft started manufacturing important PC components...
then it hit me.
sigh... goes to show that friday evenings are best spent away from the computer for best results.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Anyone else notice that in the last couple of days Microsoft's ad for Visual Studio .Net keeps coming up in the rotation when ever there is Linux story.
Wonder how much that cost them to buy those keywords? Could C. Taco be enjoying a quiet vacation on an island somewhere?
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
I just tried just the patch to .19, and it's blocking on this driver. Pulling the full code to confirm we need Alan again...
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Ok, I'll bite.
;0)
I didn't actually manage to get through the whole thing (about the first ten points), but basically they all seemed to deal with how the GPL could infect your software and impose certain responsibilities on you. Of course almost all of these points only affect you only if you actually develop your own inhouse programs. Horror of horrors, you can't "borrow" the code and do with it whatever you want ala BSD. I'd like to know how many companies use Windows source in their programs
Basically, this just creates FUD in the minds of business execs who don't understand software licenses to begin with. Most just pay for the software and use it as is. Very few would even think to ask if they could modify the program themselves! So this whole thing can be safely ignored by them (well, when they pirate the software by using it on home computers they'd have to remember not to copy the source, otherwise they're not breaking any laws!)
So unless we actually modify the software we run to begin with (and I assume since this is an MS doc, they're trying to get you to use MS products), how would using a GPL program be any different for the majority of users? For the minority who still write their own stuff, they should darn well be familiar with software licenses already!
Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. --Herbert Hoover
Anybody notice? Whenever you *used* to untar a new kernel tarball, it created a directory 'linux'. Now it creates 'linux-2.4.19'.
'Bout time! I always hated creating a temporary directory to uncompress to...
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
[n/t]
So what do I press to install this in Win2k?
(02/06/06 1.537.2.10)
[PATCH] Re: mislabelled label patch
No pun intended...
Your comment is very interesting. Can you provide an e-mail address or web link where I could learn more?
stable linux
I am using Gentoo's linux release 7 of the 2.4.19 kernel.
I see one change log item related to AMD processors. Does anyone know if this or any other fix in this kernel fixes the nvidia/amd lockup problem (which can be worked around in 2.4.18 with the mem=nopentium boot parameter)? _john_
Why use a mirror when I can get it from the main site at 380kB/sec just fine. My download is done in less than 5mins. Now I can share it to all my friends and they don't need to use (an official) Mirror OR the main download site. :)
Wrong bug. It compiled, but folks need to do a "make dep" after an "make oldconfig"
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
There were no changes between 19-rc5 and 19-final, and fewer and fewer changes between the -rc's.
It's funny that Microsoft never released a document explaining their EULAs this thoroughly...
Man, that took about 5 MONTHS! I can't comprehend the maddness!
to keep him from prosecuting VA linux for stock fraud . just kidding.
Will there be an 'official' 2.4.19 kernel image package for Debian Woody?
It's nice to know that Linux is approaching the quality of commercial software.
Amateur, got any other insightful remarks to make?
Imagine a Beowolf Cluster of THESE!!!
I also agree with website.
Thank you for your time.
What do you mean, I should upgrade my 2400bps modem?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Erhm... no, sorry, 2.4.19 is out NOW. Yes, I run Gentoo, and yes, it's confusing as fsck. 2.4.19-gentoo-r7 is actually based on 2.4.19-pre5, if memory serves.
Anarchy$ dd if=/dev/random of=~/.signature bs=120 count=1
mogorific carpentry experiments
(02/07/17 1.642)
...
[PATCH] PATCH: personality clashes
If only they were all that easy to fix
neither has my fucking microwave.
If you are at a University, use a mirror located at another University. Chances are the traffic will travel over Internet2 at ridiculous speeds, and not strain your University's (usually) clogged commodity Internet link.
I got 1.42Mbytes/sec from U of Wisconsin to FIU, myself.
Sorry for being off topic.
I'd like to use ext3. I would not like to apply a third party patch to any kernel. Does that mean I must use 2.4.X, and can not use 2.2.X? Thanks in advance
COL
ONC
OLO
NCO
LON
COL
This strredwolf character must be a karma whore or something. I'm wondering how he even managed to patch his kernel with his skill level.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let me try to be helpful. Combinations of tar find and grep work well for me.
basic tar syntax:
tar cvx archive_name.tar file_path_1 file_path_2 ... to create archive_name.tar with all files in path.
tar xvf archive_name.tar to restore. the .tar is optional of course, but it helps me.
useful tar options:
-u, update to only add new or modified files.
-G, old style incrimental
-g, new style incrimental
-z, gzip files
Combined with find and grep and put into a chron job, this is a very powerful backup tool. For example something like:
tar cvu archive.tar `find | grep patern`
performed at regular intervals does a great job.
Tell me about dump.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
(02/07/30 1.659)
:)
PATCH More -ac merge
Sweet, now my system will scream "FIRST BOOT!!!!" at me when I turn it on.
Everything will be taken away from you.
DEATH SCISSOR
First found in: Mission 6
Appearance Rate: *----
Difficulty Rate: ***--
Attacks: Hurling itself at Dante 4 times from different sides,
Swiping at Dante with its giant scissors
Following an encounter with a Death Scissor, it puts up a barrier in which
you must defeat him. He's a much stronger variation of a Sin Scissor except
he's uh, stronger and a male, I think. Exploiting the tactics you used on the
Sin Scissor won't work adequately against him since he blocks very well with
that weapon of his. You'll need to dance around until you find a weak spot,
then attack. His cowhead-mask is his main weak point. If you stall for too
long, he'll act first. It starts to heave itself at you 4 times, all from
different directions. Dante can avoid them by jumping to the side every 1 1/2
seconds. When it is almost about to cower at Dante's feet, it will speed up
its attacks, but that won't stop you from completely whooping its ass.
[ALTERNATE STRATEGY] Submitted by Rejean "Billco" Lambert
When battling Death Scissor in the swampy sewers, try to slash at his
scissors whenever you can, even if he starts doing his one-handed
triple-lunge move (time it right and you can knock him out of each swing),
and when he loses his guard and falls on his face, activate DT and slash him
silly. His face will then turn red and he'll start doing his nose-dive
attack, which is laughably avoided by jumping at a straight angle from his
trajectory. After three dives he will make a beeline straight for you, just
jump and shoot him a few times with the handguns, then go back to slashing
his scissors. You should be done with him after his second nose-dive stunt,
taking a little under a minute to beat him.
So, now we have 2.4.something kernel. What will that do for you? Improve your income, get your bills paid on time? None of those, it'll be just another of those slashdot's announcement. People will do whatever and post myriads meaningless messages. None will talk about things that are relevant and none will do anything to improve failing economy, including IBM that suppose to support Linux but is reluctant to hire those laid off Linux engineers, support engineers, etc. It's all going to nuts! Do you think RHat will survive this downturn? Tell me about it!
IP was invented for the sake of lawsuits.
err...which unfree stuff is that?
It's funny that Microsoft never released a document explaining their EULAs this thoroughly
well said.
Of course almost all of these points only affect you only if you actually develop your own inhouse programs.
I'll bite too...
That's dead wrong. You can do whatever you want as long as you license your in-house programs GPL. What's wrong with that? You don't have to give them to anybody, so you don't have to give away your source! There's absolutely no reason to worry about it.
So you're even more right than you think ;)
Yummy!
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Assuming someone else on this list was, like me, silly enough to buy a PowerVR Kyro-based graphics accelerator, here's a fix for a compile bug that I got w/ kernel 2.4.19 and gcc 3.1:
drm/pvr_drm_vm.h, line 138, change to:
physical = (unsigned long)page_address(pte_page( pte ));
Great!!! I always love when a new kernel comes out so I can deal with a completely different set of modules having 'unresolved symbols' and being impossible to load/use.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Well, I've seen a few instructions for debian, but they're either wrong or not comented, so I'll try my own also.
/usr/src/linux or whever your favorite place is.
/usr/src/linux): /boot/config-2.4.18 .config .deb's ..
/lib/modules/2.4.19-me, /boot/vmlinux-2.4.19-me, etc
First, get the sources. I don't see them in the debian tree yet, so get them from kernel.org yourself. Put it in
To compile (all in
# optional: tells debian to apply any debianized patches (eg. preempt, ReiserFS, XFS, whatever)
# very important to do *before* config, or else you'll be configuring and building different things
export PATCH_THE_KERNEL=yes
make-kpkg --append-to-version "-me" -rev test.1 --initrd debian
# configure the kernel as you chose
cp
make oldconfig # or x/menuconfig
# build the kernel image
make-kpkg --append-to-version "-me" -rev test.1 --initrd kernel_image
# optional: build debianized modules (eg. nvidia, lirc, alsa)
make-kpkg --append-to-version "-me" -rev test.1 --initrd modules_image
# install the resulting
cd
dpkg -i *2.4.19-me*.deb
Explination of make-kpkg options:
--apend-to-version: optional, but a good idea. Makes the kernel version into 2.4.19-me and avoids any conflicts by installing to
-rev: needed for the debs. good as long as it has some number in it
--initrd: tell it to build the initial ram disk (/boot/initrd.img-2.4.19-me). Not sure if it's really needed, but all debian kernels have one so I figure might as well use it.
I'm aware that not all of the options are needed on all of the commands, but I figure for safty and consistency's sake, to just leave it as is.
Hope this helps someone.
Ohhhh Godddd...I just fuckin came so hard!!! I noticed this article was about a Linux kernel release and I didn't even have to touch my peter...it just went off. Good lord.
Liberate your mind in two clicks or less.
Having a trojaned SSH build script was bad enough.
You *really* don't want a compromised kernel. Use the signatures.
um... if a program is licensed under the GPL, you can't do whatever you want. You can only do whatever you want as long as you don't violate the GPL. Which means you can't do some things you might want to do... So if you want to do them, you can't do anything you want.
So yes, I'm even more right than I thought (but I did think I was that right... ) So maybe you're just wrong?? But you're right, you don't have to release GPL programs (big issue with online chess servers).
Hrm, I believe I shouldn't post comments at 3AM judging by what I've just written... of course why I was bored enough to respond to the orginal troll is beyond me... I think I'll go play some chess on FICS (www.freechess.org).
Blessed are the young, for they shall inherit the national debt. --Herbert Hoover
I have had an Arm CY-13 with PhoenixBIOS for about 3-4 months. Right now I have zilch ACPI support for 2.4.18. Is there anyone who has tried the ACPI with the new kernel? If so, does it work at all?
One thing I really with kernel releases had was a way to rsync/cvs/bk whatever to the release kernel. That way only the files that have been changed get sent. kernel.org's rsync is setup to let you mirror the site, but not the individual kernel. I'm thinking of the kind of access provided to the kernel sources on the penguinppc.org project. That way, I can start with any bastardized kernel source and arrive at a pristine new source dir without using up the bandwith to download the whole thing. Heck, I can even exclude the architectures I'm not using, saving even more bandwidth.
Anyone know if/where to get this kind of access to the kernels?
I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by
Of those 10 points, point 10 is the only significant "Question Every Business Should Ask About the GNU General Public License (GPL)".
10. Do you have any existing obligations that might preclude your use of GPL software?
The answer is NO, there is nothing precluding anybody from using GPL software once they have access to it. The deceptive answer immediatele switches the bait to the use of "GPL code", which implys a significantly different animal. In any case, there is nothing stopping you from using the code however you se fit. The only restriction involved is in who you give the GPL code/software to, and how you go about it. Not "Every Business" is in the business of distributing computer code.
Every other Question is irrelevant with the context in which this treatise was presented.
Oh, and I didn't notice any variant of the word "terror" in this thread.
I've been drinking and coulda sworn I was already using 4.2.19 or whatnot!!
:(
But I probably wasn't because Slashdot is teh roxor!!!!
I dunno
Yay for kernels. Hooray for Linus! Woot! Roxor! GNU is teh rox!
Now if we could just get Linus to add my cowboyneal mod
Just found out that both RedHat's and Qlogic's version of the QLA 2200 HBA won't compile on 2.4.19. Did they screw up?
Where is the new EULA that states that you allow Linus to collect information about the hardware and software installed on your system, and to install new versions without your prior consent?
But it has some serious personality problems. Luckily, I'm not the only one who noticed:
(02/07/17 1.642)
[PATCH] PATCH: personality clashes
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Once I wanted to upgrade libc in some queer way: cp -f /lib/libc-2.1.3.so /lib/libc-2.1.1.so
and the system froze completely (because I'm in X). The libc got corrupted so I have to use a rescue disk.
mod parent up funny!!!
If you've got a current linux source dir, either it's called linux, or linux is a symlink to it. Thus the new tar blows away the old one.
Infuriate left and right
There is absolutely no reason for anyone to subject themselves to LILO any more
Unless, of course, you want to support an evil corporation that goes by the name of The Walt Disney Company.
The Truth About Lilo & Stitch
Since grub can read your filesystems, you'll never be stuck needing to use a rescue disk if there is still a valid kernel somewhere on your HD.
That is, unless something else <cough>Windows Update</cough> eats your dual-boot machine's master boot record.
Will I retire or break 10K?
A car returns the first element of a list. A cdr returns the remaining elements.
Or if you have no interest in Scheme or Common Lisp, a car is a transportation device, and a cdr is a backup medium.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Insert standard Insert-Standard-Wisecrack wisecrack...
Will I retire or break 10K?
about half the US [has broadband]?
Half the US is 2% of the world. Even if you assume that 2% of the population both can get cable or DSL to the home and is willing to pay for cable or DSL (the "willing to pay" excludes T1, which the local telco monopolies have kept high in the three figures USD by suppressing bandwidth co-ops), you shouldn't be mean to the 98% who can't get it.
If you are running 2.4.14 to 2.4.18, don't download the entire Linux kernel. Download the patches from the old tree to the new tree; they're smaller.
Will I retire or break 10K?
So what do I press to install this in Win2k?
If you want to install a Linux system on a computer that runs Windows 2000 Professional, you should buy 1. a second hard drive (linux can't reliably write to ntfs 5) and 2. a copy of a distribution. If this is your first time using Linux on a PC workstation, I'd suggest using Mandrake or Lycoris.
Then come back and ask about upgrading your kernel if you need support for some specific devices attached to your machine.
You have been helped :-)
Will I retire or break 10K?
And then later...
Wow! Excellent example of misunderstanding the GPL! There are *NO RESTRICTIONS* on the use of GPL'd code. Don't believe me? Check the GPL:
What this means is that the *only* thing the GPL applies to is redistribution of code. If you simply use the code, you're free to do with it whatever you want (except redistribute it). So I'd recommend that you take your own advice and read the GPL before you start spouting off about what it's implications are.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
The tarball now includes the first directory level as linux-2.4.19 instead of linux! Now I don't have to do,
/usr/src/tmp ../linux-2.4.19.tar.bz2 | tar xf - ../linux-2.4.19
:'(
cd
bzcat
mv linux
Two whole commands fewer!
I'm already kind of missing those days.
:wq
I noticed a huge number of apple stories hitting the front page a few weeks ago. /. central
Somthing's going on at
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
the kernel change log on fresh meat is always nice and tidy.
but you have to go through gatch rc and pre version to get a full picture.
e.g. 2.4.19-pre9 change log is....
This release should be the last pre-patch before 2.4.19. It contains USB, emu10k1, and i2o fixes, a devfs fix, several gcc 3.1 compilation error fixes, support for I845G, USB Casio EM500, and Tieman Voyager USB Braille display drivers, and several documentation updates.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Just hit "refresh" on your browser.
The 2.4.19 release took way too long to happen. This is supposed to be the stable branch. I believe that they tried to change too many things at one time and that some of the changes were large which caused a lot of problems.
You don't try to sell a product to the people that already bought it. You go and stamp your ad on the window of your competitor's shop.
Ciao
----
FB
I don't need no stinkin 2.4 kernel! I want my 2.0!
This FUD-spouting dumb fuck can't even spell MCSE.
The GPL does not force you to redistribute your product. It just says if you do, anything that is built on GPL'd code must also be GPL'd.
If the GPL is so damn bad, why did that noted terrorist-supporting NSA pick GPL'd Linux when they wanted a secure operating system?
You're not only reading a "silly" posting, you're posting to it yourself!!! If that's "busy" I want your job.
Who's worse? The silly poster or the supposedly busy person reading all about what the silly poster wrote?
WFT is that? They burger-flipper who gives you your Big Mac?
[Broadband] exists elsewhere too, you know.
I assumed that the number of USA residents who can get residential broadband but don't was about the same as the number of people outside the USA who get broadband.
Will I retire or break 10K?
...in its own subdirectory!
./linux directly after unpacking. Perhaps the most user-friendly change in the kernel in a long time.
;-)===)
I was geting tired of renaming
I already like it!
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted and ignored otherwise.
I can't make my USB mouse work with 2.4.19.
Same compilation options I had with 2.4.18.
Initialization seems ok, but nothing happens when moving it under GPM or XFree.
Back to 2.4.18!
I have a slow machine!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Linux is the best OS I have seen so far in both server and desktop. I think this is just the beginning for Linux the good days are just a head of us.
So are Gentoo users generally as retarded as you are?
-pre5, or -rc5? -rc5's the one that was just formally released.
I can understand the "if possible" clause.
Mirros sometimes don't have the file.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I know that 2.4.19 took more than 5 months to complete.
I also know that Marcelo intended 2.4.19 to be a fix-bug-only release.
So, exactly how many changes are there, as compared to 2.4.18 ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Do you accept a major credit card?
Damn your .sig is stupid. What do the Village People have to do with democracy?
The Village People never sang a song about the "DMCA". They sang about "YMCA". At least a half dozen parodies of that song were about the DMCA.
The point of the signature ("They call this a DeMoCrAcy?") is this: In a truly representative democracy, would Americans have let their leaders enact the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
-- Damian Yerrick (yerricde) (posted AC because it's OT but it needs to be said)Don't be clueless, there was never an intent to use an install kernel
beyond intiail installation. One should always compile a custom kernel
as the first act on a new installation, other than adduser of course.
'apt-get install kernel-package' and read the README.gz file there,
as well as Rationale.gz.
the full 23MB of it.
At 56kb...
And I need improved wireless support in 2.4.19.
My ISP will be very pleased.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
the reason is:
AMD + Nvidia = crash
unless you pass mem=nopentium to the kernel. and I couldn't figure out how to pass mem=nopentium with GRUB.
GRUB is _SO_ stupid it refuses to run if the parameter after an '=' sign is anything but a number.
What ? Me, worry ?