Slashdot Mirror
Linux Kernel 2.6.4 Released
justinarthur writes "The Linux kernel version 2.6.4 has been released at 03:16 UTC. Included in the changes from version 2.6.3 are fixes to XFS support, Wide Area Networking, USB connectivity, and IEEE1394 connectivity. To download a copy, it is recommended that one utilizes a Linux Kernel Archives mirror. Linus Torvalds' announcement to the Linux Kernel Mailing list concerning this release is available here." Reader k-zed points out that Linux 1.0 was released in March 1994, ten years ago.
Linus, or Bagle and Netsky......
... I was thinking "I don't need this kernel upgrade, 2.6.3 has been working great for me..." I find in the changelog:
[IRDA]: Add stir4200 driver.
doh... finally added support for one of my usb-irda dongles.
Damn.
FLR
The name of this release amongst the core developers was "Heathen Chemistry.". Alan Cox came up with it - it's was inside joke about british pop/rock phenomenon.
has there been any talk of removing the alleged SCO code? or rumors? i guess linus wouldn't make a statement about it now, since there's the lawsuit going on
Odd. I'm still stuck on my 2.4.xx version. I tried to upgrade a few distros to 2.6 and things didn't go very well (kernel panic)
It seems to me that the number of users who have picked up 2.6 x compared to the number that picked up 2.4 from 2.2 has greatly diminished on many of the distro mailing lists. From this it seems that either the migration is uglier than anticipated, or that more people are just willing to sit back and wait for their distro to provide them with all their needs.
Who will be the first to ship kernel 2.6 by default?
Wonder if we'll see reiser4 in 2.6.
You can test it now, but it is very experimental.
Maybee they'll merge it with 2.7
2.6.4-rc1 ChangeLog:
d .org/msg58421.html
[libata] catch, and ack, spurious DMA interrupts
Hardware issue on Intel ICH5 requires an additional ack sequence over and above the normal IDE DMA interrupt ack requirements. Issue described in post to freebsd list: http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-stable@freebs
Since the bug workaround only requires a single additional PIO or MMIO read in the interrupt handler, it is applied to all chipsets using the standard libata interrupt handler.
Credit for research the issue, creating the patch, and testing the patch all go to Jon Burgess.
---------
Woo, this is very exciting. If you had problems with SATA & ICH5... this probably fixes those problems.
all it needs now is some love and it'll be ready for my machine.
Its kinda funny, I run windows on one of my machines, and I'm constantly installing patches. Not to mention my 3 BIG patches the ones that cost me a hundred or so dallors. My 98 - 2000 patch and my 2000 to xp patch. The process is still the same, the only difference is the linux changes come bit by bit instead of in a bulk jump on a cd. Personally, i would rather get my updates in small increments. That why I can pick and choose what updates I want. If 2.6.4 doesnt add anything I need, maybe I'll hold off to the next one. And besides, it beats spending cash.
What else than "incremental patches" does Microsoft deliver, especially in the days where there is no week with new IE and OE exploits being announced and eventually (after months) being fixed?
The reason why "Windows is still the desktop OS of choice" is just because it comes preinstalled with any vanilla PC you can buy out there. Because it will run the games people copy from their friends. Because it runs Microsoft Office.
If Microsoft released Office for Linux I'm more than sure that numerous offices will switch to Linux and if it's just to escape the virus race which cost them plenty of time, money, and nerves.
26th release is the wrong answer!
First of all, for Linux uneven numbers are development-versions.
Second the 1.X versions stopped at 1.3
Third, version 1.0 surely was not the 10th major release
However, this truly is the forth Service Pack for the Linux 2.6
Speaking as a Debian Unstable user...
Y'know how apt tends to make X-Windows jerky and unresponsive? It doesn't happen with 2.6.3. Now if I can only figure out why the OSS modules are being autoloaded for my built-in VIA 82something-or-ther rather than the ALSA ones, I'll be all set.
From the Changelog
[PATCH] kthread primitive
From: Rusty Russell
These two patches provide the framework for stopping kernel threads to
allow hotplug CPU. This one just adds kthread.c and kthread.h, next
one uses it.
Most importantly, adds a Monty Python quote to the kernel.
Haven't had a chance to pull in the source. Anyone know what this is?
I don't even know of anyone running 2.4 anymore actually. I mean, why not upgrade?
I finally got around to compiling 2.6.3 last night; ran into some issues.
its much more responsive than 2.4 for desktop use
The desktop is definitely more responsive, but (at least for me) at the expense of everything else. MPlayer, xmms, and anything that's remotely timing-intensive is unusable (xmms actually skips while playing MP3s, and Mplayer prints the message "Your computer is TOO SLOW to play this file" when playing anything I've got. Note that everything works fine under 2.4.)
I went through the various mailing lists looking for suggestions, with no luck; every suggestion is OK (checked drive DMA, kernel settings, X nice level, etc.) - interestingly enough, one post I read said to try glxgears.. I did, and it runs better under 2.6 - constant frame rate, regardless of what else I'm doing, whereas in 2.4, even moving the mouse drops the frame rate.)
So it's back to 2.4 for me. I'll probably try 2.6.4, to see if the situation has improved, but for the mean time, I'll stick with 2.4.
You should almost *never* need to upgrade your kernel from the one that comes with your current distribution, assuming you are using a reasonably modern distribution...
This is why new kernels are "bleeding edge" for people that want to play until the distributions release them officially. This kernel release has *nothing* to do with why people are put off from using Linux. In fact, since 1997, when I've started using Linux, I've NEVER once upgraded my kernel because the official "standard" kernels have always been sufficient. Generally, if you have a resonably modern distribution, it's included kernel is enough. Those people that say that "normal users can't recompile their kernels" are missing the point... You NEVER need to recompile your kernel, in the majority of circumstances. Simply upgrading your desktop with the most recent major revision of your favorite distribution is simply enough, and these days, that is almost always as easy as simply popping in a CD and rebooting. The only time that I ever considered upgrading my kernel was due to a hardware flaw in the KT600 chipsets that hardlocks AGP in 3.0 mode. Kernel 2.4.22 doesn't support AGP 3.0, but kernel 2.6 does. Fortunately, I was simply able to use ATI's internal GART driver instead of the kernel's driver. This does not mean that I'm incapable of recompiling my kernel (I've done it several times for testing)- I just see no need to do it when the current *standard* kernel works so well on my machine. I'll update my machine to 2.6 when it is an official Slackware kernel.
I understand that you meant well by your post, but you are seriously missing the boat here. It's the myths about Linux difficulty, from *non-Linux users*, that make Linux seem difficult.
...why kernels are still not offered up via torrents yet?
Seems like it would help a lot.
Right now, I can't even connect to a use mirror. Grrr.
With an unhealthy risk of being seriously flamed... ;)
Microsoft tries to keep 100% back compatibility; well, for what whatever that is worth to end users. Yet, it does indeed remain their major constraint on improvement. Please, flamers, note that I wrote "tries to keep".
Heh, your comment and the 10 year thing made me think back.
I remember the old pre-1.0 days. I was running a 386DX-40 and it took around 45 minutes to compile the kernel. Back then the kernel was extremely small and it still took that long. Ah, the good old days.
I'm still amazed at how fast the kernel compiles nowadays. Whenever I recompile, somewhere in the back of my head I still think it's going to take 45 minutes even though it only takes like 2 minutes.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
Asus is slow to release fixes to things like this (I had a problem with the K7M266 mobo, with the VIA 686b southbridge that corrupted disks with the 2.4 kernel. It took ASUS longer than any other major mobo manufacturer to release a fix. But they did eventually).
Not all the time. See the anouncements about the upcoming XP SP2 that's supposed to break apps. Sure, in their view, only 'unsecure' apps will be broken (*) ^_^ That smacks of breaking backwards compatibility - not that it would really be such a bad thing for Windows.
And yeah, I don't much care of their notifying app vendors, if users will still have to buy the 'corrected' version of the software.
(*) does that mean WinXP too?
If only all "Version 2" software worked this well
Heh, the power of understatement. Although I think NetBSD is really the king of understatement - NetBSD is only at version 1.6.2, and it's been around for more than 10 years.
-- Never hit a man with glasses. Hit him with a baseball bat.