Slashdot Mirror
Linux Kernel 2.2.23 Released
sekra writes "Alan Cox has released a new version of the 2.2 kernel. 2.2.23-rc2 was renamed to 2.2.23 without any changes. You can find the ChangeLog in his announcement and download the patch from your local mirror."
There seems to be a flurry of releases this weekend.
First post?
Who uses 2.2.x anymore? (besides debian)
The world uses 2.4.18+ these days!
Oh no! Wait! Not even another line!
Thanks for the announcement.
It has no usb support.
It dosent support modern fses like rieser fs
And all it has is stabillity. (like im gonna use a 486 for a server)
some sort of x86 processor conflict, I just read about it http://computers.cnet.com/linux/0-1107-404-2043625 3.html?tag=ld.
People complain about duplicate stores... Imagine what I thought when I read about a 2.2 kernel being newly released! :)
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Computer hackers are considered terrorists.
#include
if (!trusted)
{
printf("Linux not supported, go away")
}
While the 2.4 releases are (barely) newsworthy, why this? Are some people still using the _latest_ 2.2 kernels? Is there a reason to update to 2.2.x if you can't go 2.4 for some reason?
Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
The Yahoo mirror is pretty fast.
I can't stress enough the need to support older versions of the linux kernel if only for those people who simply can't switch for some reason.
:)
It may seem like a waste of time, but it's not. It's good to have older versions of the linux kernel still being maintained. Let's not be Autodesk or Microsoft, we're doing support the right way
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
#include <palladium.h>f (!trusted)
#define key 5656098569565ljk65kj5c0954545
gettrusted(key)
i
{
printf("Linux cant be trusted, go away!")
}
else
{
printf("Nice try, but youre not getting any further")
}
Linux users are terrorists!
I picked up a SparcServer1000E recently for nothing. 2.2.x series kernels are the only choice for me since sun4d architecture isn't supported under the 2.4.x kernels...
Such a pity since I'd like to use LVM etc...
Still.. I'm too dumb to fix it myself...
H
Linux sucks!
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
exit
My router uses a floppy-based distro and that has the 2.2 kernel, and I really see no reason why I would want 2.4 on that old box. It isn't broken, so it doesn't need an upgrade to 2.4. You could say that it isn't very vulnerable to the mentioned problem either, because if someone got access to it, I would have a far bigger problem than them crashing my router. Others may have other uses for 2.2, so a fix of the mentioned problem is definately a Good Thing[tm] and nice news.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Bill Gates has final say.
With the end-of-life nearing for DOS, Windows 3.1 and Windows95, leaving only Win2K and WinXP, from that other vendor, you'd think everyone would be happy to see that older hardware is still usable under Linuux using kernels that are inherently less resource-intensive.
You can't have it both ways folks...
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Get rid of that stupid penguin that shows up on boot up and replace it with This
Well, that was a nice kernel, worked fine, even with X, on a hardware that win95 had made obsolete. The motherboard had seven ISA slots, four free after the multi-IO, network, and CD-ROM went in. I did some hardware development on ISA cards. Too bad, no more. These days only industrial hardware, in the $5000+ range, have ISA slots, and PCI development can't be done by hobbyists.
On the other hand, if you have new hardware like e.g. a nforce2-board: use and test the newest kernel versions. I for my part am anxiously waiting for the new X86 version which will support the new Intel 845G chipsets.
I work in a robotics lab and several of our robots are running 2.0. Why? The company that built them wrote drivers that run in 2.0 and they've since gone out of business. As long as the kernel is stable, which it is, it's not worth the development effort for us to write new 2.2 or 2.4 drivers. Given that the robot cost about $60K, we're also not eager to run out and buy a new one.
So long, and thanks for all the Phish
Forgive the stupid question, but would it be possible to replace my current kernel (2.4.18) with this older one (2.2.23) if I wanted to run Linux on an older machine (P200)? From what I can see here, 2.2 is less resource-intensive than 2.4.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
I would like to see if I can set up a lighter system on my 486, so my mom can use the web and email. A GUI, compatibility with modern webpages and ease of use are a requirement.
Presently I have windows 3.11 + Calmira (a very lightweight program that gives you a win95 interface under 3.x). I can run the 16-bit version of IE5 there just fine, though it takes a few seconds to boot.
Can I do this with an older Linux kernel? I remember that 2 year ago your average distro ran very slowly on my recently deceased MMX pentium so I definitely cant use anything standar like that on my 486.
I was thinking that given its infinite customizability an LFS setup could breathe new life into the ole bugger. Is it worth it to move to an older kernel and lose compatibility with modern apps?
Wouldnt the apps be more resource-intensive than the kernel? I shudder at the thought of how slow mozilla would be on that box. Does opera require a 2.4 kernel? Does IceWM? Is there anything lighter than IceWM with a win95 look? Any general advice?
more uninterested in kernel releases and thus find time to go outdoors! This may be flame bait but you can call me gasoline biatch.
Most Unsecure OS? Yep, It's Linux
November 26, 2002 | Paul Thurrott
According to a new Aberdeen Group report, open-source solution Linux has surpassed Windows as the most vulnerable OS, contrary to the high-profile press Microsoft's security woes receive. Furthermore, the Aberdeen Group reports that more than 50 percent of all security advisories that CERT issued in the first 10 months of 2002 were for Linux and other open-source software solutions. The report muddles the argument that proprietary software such as Windows is inherently less secure than open solutions. And here's another blow to the status quo: Proprietary UNIX solutions were responsible for just as many security advisories as Linux in the same time period. Could Windows be the most secure mainstream OS available today?
"Open-source software, commonly used in many versions of Linux, UNIX, and network routing equipment, is now the major source of elevated security vulnerabilities for IT buyers," the report reads. "Security advisories for open-source and Linux software accounted for 16 out of the 29 security advisories--about one of every two advisories--published for the first 10 months of 2002. During this same time, vulnerabilities affecting Microsoft products numbered seven, or about one in four of all advisories."
The stunning report makes several claims that seem to fly in the face of widely accepted beliefs. First, the Aberdeen Group says that Windows-based Trojan horse attacks peaked in 2001, when CERT released six such advisories, then bottomed out this year, when CERT didn't issue any alerts. However, Trojan horse-based attacks on Linux, UNIX, and open-source projects jumped from one in 2001 to two in 2002. The Aberdeen Group says this information proves that Linux and UNIX are just as prone to Trojan horse attacks as any other OS, despite press reports to the contrary, and that Mac OS X, which is based on UNIX, is also vulnerable to such attacks. Even more troubling, perhaps, is the use of open-source software in routers, Web servers, firewalls, and other Internet-connected solutions. The Aberdeen Group says that this situation sets up these devices and software products to be "infectious carriers" that intruders can easily usurp.
According to the Aberdeen Group, the open-source community's claim that it can fix security vulnerabilities more quickly than proprietary developers can means little. The group says that the open-source software and hardware solutions need more rigorous security testing before they're released to customers. This statement is particularly problematic because many Linux distributions lack the sophisticated automatic-update technologies modern Windows versions contain.
We can rail against Microsoft and its security policies, but far more people and systems use Microsoft's software than the competition's software. I believe that we'll never know how secure Linux is, compared with Windows, until a comparable number of people and systems use Linux. But despite the fact that Linux isn't as prevalent as Windows, we're still seeing a dramatic increase in Linux security advisories today. I think the conclusion is obvious.
A cluster of Alan Coxes. What about a cluster of kernels.
Tat Tvam Asi
I am so sick of seeing the standard, "Why did we post this stupid story?" questions. Hey people read the FAQ The pertinent answer is copied below. Secondly, if you think it is just blah news, or unimportant, just skip the headlines -- surely you don't read everything in the newspaper, you read what YOU are interested in. The newspaper reports what it decides to.
Why did you post story X?
Slashdot is many things to many people. Some people think it's a Linux site. To others, it's a geek hangout. I've always worked very hard to make sure that Slashdot matches up with my interests and the interests of my authors. We think we're pretty typical Slashdot readers... but that does mean that occasionally one of us might post something that you think is inappropriate. You might be interested in my Omelette rant.
Personally, I have a pet peeve when people post comments saying things like "That's not News For Nerds!" and "That's not Stuff that Matters!" Slashdot has been running for almost 5 years, and over that time, I have always been the final decision maker on what ends up on the homepage. It turns out that a lot of people agree with me: Linux, Legos, Penguins, Sci (both real and fiction). If you've been reading Slashdot, you know what the subjects commonly are, but we might deviate occasionally. It's just more fun that way. Variety Is The Spice Of Life and all that, right? We've been running Slashdot for a long time, and if we occasionally want to post something that someone doesn't think is right for Slashdot, well, we're the ones who get to make the call. It's the mix of stories that makes Slashdot the fun place that it is.
Answered by: CmdrTaco
Last Modified: 6/26/00
Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more cowbell!
The kernel compiles you!
I had no problem with kernel 2.4.19 and Intel's 845G chipset.
(snip from dmesg...)
Linux version 2.4.19 (root@tux) (gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release)) #5 Fri Nov 29 19:45:26 PST 2002
Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGE=slack8-1 ro
Initializing CPU#0
Detected 2524.974 MHz processor.
Console: colour VGA+ 80x25
Calibrating delay loop... 5033.16 BogoMIPS
Memory: 256852k/261588k available
Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.53GHz stepping 07
Linux agpgart interface v0.99 (c) Jeff Hartmann
agpgart: Maximum main memory to use for agp memory: 203M
agpgart: Detected Intel i845G chipset
agpgart: AGP aperture is 128M @ 0xe8000000
As far as your nForce2 board goes, you can
download the linux drivers from nvidia.
Linux nForce driver.
I'm trying to imagine a language in which those statements are equivalent, or even meaningful. Note especially the lack of a second semicolon in posArr[4] = new Array();". The second fragment is completely inscrutable.
Kindly take every 486 in working condition you can find and drop it off at my house. A dozen will do nicely thank you. Hell, I'll even take a few busted ones in the lot.
And while you're here I've got a few NST's ( Nice Shiney Things) to sell you. Cheap Price, especial just for you, mi Amigo, orginal, from di ruins.
Glad to know that stability is no longer a needed feature of servers.
Sorry for biting the bait though. It wasn't even a very good troll.
KFG
it's still possible to buy or download older distros if you're starting from scratch. This makes sure that everything is coordinated on the software/library front.
If you have no need for the latest Windows workalike GUI or certain hardware support it may even well be the "correct" way to go.
Red Hat 5.2 is a real workhorse of a distro.
On my old 486 VGA laptop I run mulinux which I belive still runs a 2.0x kernel. Boots from a single floppy and uses UMSDOS so it doesn't interfere with my Windows 3.11 install at all. If all you run is vi and some network tools this is really all you need.
There's lots of work still to be gotten out of older kernels.
KFG
Old kernel uses YOU!
Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
There is no choice before us. Either we must Succeed in providing the
rational coordination of impulses and guts, or for centuries civilization
will sink into a mere welter of minor excitements. We must provide a
Great Age or see the collapse of the upward striving of the human race.
-- Alfred North Whitehead
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...