Linux Kernel 2.4.20 Released

punkmac writes "It's that time again to do the thing we all love to do, compile your shiny new kernel. This time its 2.4.20. The changelog can be found at the usual places, and please use a mirror for all your downloads"

Comments

Re:first compile...

[sa3]

first compile? it was released over 5 hours ago

I'd stay away from this one

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like another excuse to release, with a bunch of unimportant changes.

I'm sure (s)he understands Linux perfectly well

[BlackTriangle]

And realizes that Linux is a buggy piece of shit

Ever work out how Nums Lock works, guys? Didn't think so. Nice consistency to that ole cut and paste in kedit...

Where's the software?

Where's the ease of use?

Where's the supposed speed benefits? Oh, I forgot, they died in 1997 when the ratio of OS processor usage / application processor usage fell off the map.

Re:I'm sure (s)he understands Linux perfectly well

[Anonymous Coward]

And realizes that Linux is a buggy piece of shit
As opposed to MS' "security disaster of the month club"? Or maybe the *BSD "it'll work great as long as you use only ISA cards" system.

Where's the software? /etc/apt/sources.list

Where's the ease of use?
True, Linux isn't a Mac, but it's a lot cheaper. Windows? The most frustrating damn thing on the planet. At least with Linux I have a fighting chance of figuring it out if something doesn't work on the first try, with Windows, forget it.

Of course, for real ease of =use=, nothing beats a Unix system.

Where's the supposed speed benefits? Oh, I forgot, they died in 1997 when the ratio of OS processor usage / application processor usage fell off the map.

I can run Linux on a 486 with X and a GUI as long as the graphics card is VLB. Can you do that with any recent version of any other OS?

Re:I'm sure (s)he understands Linux perfectly well

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a moron:

1. A 486 running Linux has no utility whatsoever, in the sense that the same functionality can almost certainly be obtained in a more economical fashion (your time == money).

2. None of the recent Linux distributions will run on your 486.

3. None of the recent Linux kernels will run on your 486 without extensive tweaking.

4. Fact: Windows 95 will run fine on a 486 and consume fewer resources than Linux + X + any decent window manager.

You suck, sir.

Linux is truely impressing me now...

[jpt.d]

... not because of itself, I don't actually use it. Its that they now can release less than 1 kernel every few months.

When I used Linux for about a month a while back I remember when they would release a kernel and by the time it was compiled and installed, the next one was out.

Re:Repeat!

[domninus.DDR]

i would mod you up but you spelled humor wrong.

Wow that was fast

[Anonymous Coward]

But now, just look at this. How can people dare to put such sick and offensive contents on the Web. Disgusting!

Promoting your business

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot step 0:

* Don't use a gay name like goingware

Please update your article.

Puh-lease

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you 2 just rimjob each other and get it over with? No one wants to read your lame asskissing.

Your posting brings a tear to my eye

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for linking to my previous work! It was worth getting my subnet banned for that!!

U da MaN, gonadware fagboy!

I expect to see one of your masterful articles about being trolled, RSN!

LOLOLOLOLOL

MacsAreForFags

Re:Use Slackware

[gonadware]

You're not sure if recompiling the kernel for 486 actually helps, yet you recommend it? And then you say the same for glibc?? Reality check... its not going to hurt, but it won't make much of a difference either. Slashdot needs an "Uninformative" rating for posts like yours.