Linux 2.4.28 Kernel Released

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by timothy on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @08:08AM from the 2-16-2-32-2-64-2-128 dept.

An anonymous reader submits "After numerous exploits were released, the Linux kernel team has released 2.4.28. (ChangeLog). Stefan Esser detailed numerous exploits in the 2.x smbfs; other exploits were reported earlier in the week."

5 of 47 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

2.4? by RangerRick98 · 2004-11-17 08:29 · Score: 2

Just out of curiosity, anyone here still running 2.4? All the Linux users I know are on 2.6 for their machines. My Linux server is still 2.4, though.

And since I brought it up, anyone here still got a Linux box running 2.2?

--
"You're older than you've ever been, and now you're even older."
1. Re:2.4? by Webmoth · 2004-11-17 09:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Maybe desktop users are running 2.6, but there's a heck of a lot of production servers out there running 2.4 or even 2.2.
  
  As many corporations have policies limiting upgrades to extensively tested packages, upgrading to 2.6 right away isn't necessarily an option -- but a bugfix to a minor revision is acceptable.
  
  --
  Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
2. Re:2.4? by IBeatUpNerds · 2004-11-17 09:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Personally, I don't really want to upgrade to 2.6 on any machine I have. At work, my desktop is 2.4.20. We use an embedded linux distribution based on 2.4. My laptop is still 2.4. I've tried 2.6 on my laptop, but 1/2 the time I can't resume from APM suspend and ACPI is just a big problem. With 2.4 APM suspend/resume works 95% of the time. I just really don't see a reason to upgrade at this time. Perhaps if I purchase some device that will not work with 2.4 and will only work with 2.6, then I might consider it. Anyone else out there who just likes sticking with what works?
3. Re:2.4? by Nimey · 2004-11-17 09:42 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  FFS. This question gets asked /every time/ an old-stable version of the kernel is released.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
4. Re:2.4? by m50d · 2004-11-17 11:05 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I am still running 2.4, partly because I need the connexant modem drivers and want the free, full speed version, but mostly for one simple reason: 2.6 is not stable.
  
  2.6 changes far too much for a stable kernel. Every version I've tried crashes when switching out of X and then back on my cheap-as-hell TNT2. That I could accept - it's new, after all. What I can't accept is the attitude of the kernel maintainers. They inserted cryptoloop and then took it out in the space of about 5 minor versions. They ripped out the perfectly good cd writing code and replaced it with a buggy, undertested interface, for no other reason as far as I can tell than that Linus doesn't like it. But the last straw for me was Andrew saying that it's up to the distributions to make sure their kernels are stable. Is Pat Volkerding expected to stabilise the zillions of lines of code in the kernel all by himself? Because that's what it seems to be implying. But, more importantly, the linux people are distributing as a stable piece of software, something which they admit is not suitable for end users.
  
  If this goes on, we need a fork. I don't say this lightly, but the maintainers of linux seem to have abandoned the hobbyists it was started for for the sake of the big business redhat/novell distros. And that's not a kernel I want to be relying on. Anyone with me? Or should I just go over to one of the BSDs?
  
  --
  I am trolling