Linux Kernel 2.2.23 Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by CowboyNeal on Saturday November 30, 2002 @02:01AM from the brand-new-old-stock dept.

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.

14 of 129 comments (clear)

Duplicate? by suwain_2 · 2002-11-30 02:10 · Score: 5, Funny

People complain about duplicate stores... Imagine what I thought when I read about a 2.2 kernel being newly released! :)

--
________________________________________________
suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
1. Re:Duplicate? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 02:37 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Look at the numbers.
  
  Spooky, isn't it ?
  
  2.2.22 gets replaced.
  
  What's wrong with all twos ? I think we should be told.....
  
  And 2.4.20 and 2.5.50 just came out.
  
  (20 / 4) / 2) = 2.5. Coincidence ?
  
  5 / 2 = 2.5. Coincidence ?
  
  50 / 20 = 2.5. Coincidence ?
  
  An alien intelligence is at work here. Mark my words......
Nice job by koh · 2002-11-30 02:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Excellent. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 02:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

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...
lcall DoS by KjetilK · 2002-11-30 02:35 · Score: 5, Informative

Well, as it was recently shouted on debian-security, the 2.2-series had the same security flaw that allowed any local user to crash a computer. So, if you have untrusted local users, you should upgrade.
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
At least one OS will maintain compatibility by hillct · 2002-11-30 02:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

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
Re:Eh? by suwain_2 · 2002-11-30 02:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

Plus, a lot of people with mission-critical servers don't upgrade the kernels -- they have a "If it ain't broken, fix it." There's no reason to reboot your webserver raking in big bucks just so you're running the latest, shiniest, kernel. Of course, the people who ignore the big security issues and just don't want to ruin their 500+ day uptimes... are idiots. :)
Any for the record... I use Debian, and am running 2.4.19. And I'm pretty sure that even the "main" distribution of Debian now comes with a 2.4 kernel.

--
________________________________________________
suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
Then what about 1.2? by mangu · 2002-11-30 02:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

My first Linux installation was an Yggdrasil distro with kernel 1.2.13. However, since I never got any good documentation for Yggdrasil I soon moved to Slackware, same kernel. The hardware was a 386/33MHz, 8Mb RAM, two IDE disks, one 80 Mb and another 120 Mb. I still have that hardware somewhere, except that the Mitsumi CD-ROM has died.

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.
safer computing: don't fix it if it ain't broken by nniillss · 2002-11-30 02:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Older kernels are maintained for the same reason that RedHat applies fixes to all recently shipped kernels: if a user needs a security update in a production system, he/she does only want to have the bug removed. Updating to the latest and greatest (kernel) with hundreds of new features might even be more risky than keeping the old (bugged/insecure) kernel version.
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.
Still using 2.0.. by robbo · 2002-11-30 03:07 · Score: 5, Interesting

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
What can I still use with 2.2? by eggstasy · 2002-11-30 03:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?
1. Re:What can I still use with 2.2? by jensend · 2002-11-30 04:11 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Very few programs actually require 2.4. IceWM will do just fine on 2.2, and I think Opera will as well (but don't quote me on Opera). A while back, I installed Slackware 8's 'zipslack' (based on a 2.2.2x kernel) on a EXT2 partition on my 486 laptop and added X and IceWM, and it ran moderately well. However, I would really recommend getting at least 32 mb of RAM if you want to run things on X.
Re:2.2 is obsolete! by Rhubarb+Crumble · 2002-11-30 03:27 · Score: 5, Funny

And all it has is stabillity.
Yeah, and who cares about stability anyway?
Re:2.2 is obsolete! by moonbender · 2002-11-30 03:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Exactly, I don't need no stinking sta - - - Connection to host lost.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.