Slashdot Mirror
Kernels Galore
Linus has blessed what could very well be the last kernel in the 2.0 series, 2.0.38. The small patch fixes a dangerous TCP/IP bug, and two other small bugs. Please use a local mirror (ftp.us.kernel.org for us folks in the US). Update: 08/26 07:25 by J : It seems that 2.2.12 and 2.3.15 have also been blessed by the holy penguin pee :)
Perhaps greater priority could be given to retaining compatibility between kernel releases even if there are apparently wonderful reasons for someone wanting to write this or that new feature which breaks existing packages. I agree there will be benefits for many in adding new features to future kernels, but I do not accept the scale of incompatibility in 2.2 was strictly necessary. As the installed base of Linux grows and the typical user profile changes from the early Linux days, it will get harder and harder for kernels with incompatible changes to be widely adopted. Addition rather than substitution should be the developers' guideline even at the expense of bloat.
One example of the incompatibilities in 2.2 kernels with 2.0 kernels is the change in serial devices which dropped support for the long used /dev/cua* in 2.0 and all earlier kernels and enforced the new /dev/ttyS* introduced in 2.2. Needless to say this change breaks existing FAX and modem software requiring upgrades.
Linux users are lemmings collectively jumping off of the cliff of reliable, well-engineered commercial software.
Well, 2.0.x was, until recently, the current stable tree. It's arguable that it still is, although 2.2.x seems to have finally gotten decent.
(before you flame me, yes, I realize that the 2.2.x tree is labeled "stable," and is officially has been considered the latest stable tree ever since 2.2.0 was released, but that's because the "stable" label is somewhat of a misnomer. "Not as buggy as 2.1.x, but not stable either" is what i'd consider it. 2.0.x is still the stable tree. Perhaps around now i'd consider moving to 2.2.x, but not 6 months ago.)
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
For a bug that cmdrtaco considers dangerous, this isn't the type of fast patching I'd expect. I always hear bragging that Linux fixes bugs in a few days of their discovery.
According to the bugtraq post about the bug, the discoverer contacted kernel developers in May. That was three months ago. After receiving little response, he posted to Bugtraq on July 31. Now, nearly a month later, the bug finally gets fixed.
Three month turn-around times for important bugfixes doesn't seem like anything to brag about.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Linus has been a busy boy tonight, following the release of 2.0.38 with a large patch for 2.3.15 with lots of changes that managed to crash my machine the first time I tried to check my mail with it (back to 2.3.15-pre1 until I can test it :) and then a 2.2.12 release, which I haven't looked at yet.
Posted by Synsthe:
They truly are anonymous cowards.
This will get moderated down I'm almost positive, but somebody has to say it; anonymous posting is a big reason why slashdot is such a pavillion for flamers, lusers, and lamers, this particular news item being a classic example.
Who wants to bet the guy who got moderated a 5 for being a troll moderated himself up or had a luser buddy do it? Don't try and tell me he can't moderate himself up, if he posted anon than logged in, he very well could.
Who else wants to make a bet that half the lusers in here bashing Linux for no good reason (other than perhaps fear?) are probably mostly the same people just posting repeatedly as AC's?
Get over yourselves kids. Mommy and Daddy didn't give you access to the computer so you could practice being an immature brat, I'm pretty sure they hoped you would learn a thing or two.
Rant over, back to the topic at hand, atleast marginally.. =) The release of 2.0.38 doesn't affect anybody, so why the huge outcry? If you're using 2.2.x and happy with it, than good for you, but there are some who like to remain with kernel trees they've used for a length of time, and trust.
The argument remains that it's silly to shoot up to the latest, simply for the fact that it's the latest. This is a problem you have with Windows, you can't shop around and find something that's good for your system, you're given a release every year or few and that's that. You're stuck with it, no questions asked.
--
Mark Waterous (mark@projectlinux.org)
Well, alot changed 2.0>2.2, if I were running a production server, I likely would not have switched to 2.2 until about now, if that (given that 2.2.6-9 or so may have had some nasty bugs). People who need uptime tend to be very conservative, and for good reason.
Yes, if you needed some of the new features, sure, you might have upgraded, but not otherwise.
Plato seems wrong to me today
This is one of the strengths of Linux - unlike commercial Unices, in which products are marked as "End of Life" and abandoned, there is no reason to give up an older version of Linux if it still performs the required task.
--Gus
go there.
And on that note, why isn't anyone working on 1.2 anymore? :-)
... and today's pet project has
I guess this is as good a time as any to ask this question:
Are the patches cummulative? If I upgrade from 2.2.5 to 2.2.15 (or whatever the latest is), will I get all the fixes in-between?
In a related question, if they are not commulative, do I need to install all the patches in-between if I want a fix in 2.2.15 and I'm running 2.2.5?
Je ne parle pas francais.
So like.. what's this fatal and dangerous TCP/IP bug that we found? How can I brag about how fast we fix stuff in the linux crowd compared to microsoft if they don't tell me what the bug is?
How we know is more important than what we know.
Sorry for asking a (possibly) stupid question, but where can I read what has changed from 2.2.11 to 2.2.12?
-- DJ Kat is where it's at