Kernel 2.4.1 Released 274
Hey, you can read the headline. Read the Changelog, or just start downloading.
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions. -- David Jones
Re:Isn't this a bit soon? (Score:1)
Re:ReseirFS, finally! (Score:1)
No more having to listen to Hans Reiser take temper tantrums on the kernel mailing lists. I've never read more juvenile, whining, self-centered, arrogant, and childish posts in all my life. Rather than admit that maybe it wasn't appropriate for his code to be in the development kernel at a time when they were trying to freeze it, he whined, complained, and insulted everyone. Unable to acknowledge the technical reasons, he started accusing the core developers of favoritism, eliteness, and eventually just decided that there was one big conspiracy against him.
Although it saddens me that his code made it into the kernel, because of his behaviour, at least I won't have to read any more of his bitching.
It definitely gives me some insight as to why some people won't use GNU or GNU/Linux because RMS is the "spokesperson."
--
Re:People, please use the mirrors! (Score:1)
Re:2.4.1 is DEVELOPMENT (Score:5)
Re:Distros... (Score:1)
--
BIG! (Score:1)
Re:Double Standard! (Score:1)
Other Msft bashes include last Sunday's Dave Barry [herald.com] column about his BSOD'ing pc, and this morning ABCNews has this blurb about "If Msft can be hacked is anybody safe". Hahahaha, silly mass media. That's like asking, if McDonalds food isn't so good, can ANY restaurant make a good meal? I mean, they're the largest restaurant chain in existance! They MUST have the best food. Duuuuh. Public opinion will turn eventually, and no $200,000,000 advertising campaign can keep their grand self delusion going forever.
Re:Troll Fugue in B# Major (Score:1)
Re:2.4.1 is (not) DEVELOPMENT (Score:1)
The middle number of the 3 is even for stable releases, odd for development releases. The last digit is used to indicate (small) incremental upgrades and patches.
New development features will go in the 2.5.x (or 3.1.x if we really want change) tree.
Re:yes, I am pleased, but... (Score:1)
Re:Kernel Weirdness (Score:2)
Re:VIA chipset (Score:2)
http://www.signalground.com/article/3157986091
They worked like a charm for me.
Re:Distros... (Score:1)
Now I'm waiting for it to be put in distros. I guess I find it annoying how some distros (Mandrake, RedHat) go crazy if you change their kernel. However, they are better for getting a desktop to JUST WORK out of the box.
Heh. I'm currently running kernel 2.2.17 on this box that started it's life as RH 5.2. Sure, I've upgraded stuff via RPM and source tar.gz:s quite a lot during the last almost two years, but it works. ;) I haven't even used the distribution upgrade options available via the newer distributions.
Re:Distros... (Score:2)
The one thing that will save you many headaches when upgrading your Red Hat kernel is to modularize as much as possible. This is the way that Red Hat's system initialization scripts like it, and it's probably good practice anyway.
Re:The sweet irony (Score:2)
If anything, what I've seen most of is that they are critizised for being too slow to issue patches and upgrades, and also for releasing products that are claimed to be stable even when theres tons of outstanding bugs.
And 2.3 got up a lot higher than 12 or 13, but 2.3 is a development kernel - it's was not intended for normal use - all Linux releases 2.x.y with odd "x" are development kernels.
Even though I despise Windows, I'd be happy if MS did follow Linux' model and released patches more often, and didn't try to take their customers money for buggy crap while claiming it to be a "stable" version.
It's getting quite annoying with trolls like you who try to present the "hypocrisy" of the linux community, while presenting opinions that are by no means prevalent as if they were the opinions of the whole community.
Re:ReseirFS, finally! (Score:1)
It's not like the world is being deprived of "potentially useful code." People have been using ReiserFS for ages now, and most distributions come with either a alternative kernel compiled with ReiserFS, or ReiserFS patches to the mainline kernel already installed.
Second, it's easy to obtain said patches. It's not like there's one guy, in the middle of the Sahara, that you need to send an SASE to in order to get the source code carefully inscribed on dried clumps of sand.
I'm not defending Mr Reiser's behavior, but don't you think that the code should speak for itself? I have no idea what he is like as a person and I don't really care as long as he writes good code.
Don't you think Mr. Reiser should let the quality and/or utility of the code speak for itself, rather than putting all sorts of pressure on the kernel developers to include his code NOW NOW NOW (or, if possible, yesterday)? For a long time, the kernel developers didn't put his code into the kernel because they had different plans. They wanted to make the foundations better for all journalling filesystems. Yet, rather than acknowledge that there might be a technical reason for the lack of inclusion of his code, Hans took a fit and accused anyone and everyone of being part of a conspiracy against him.
That doesn't sound like someone who lets code quality stand on its own.
I'd be perfectly willing to let his code stand on his own - as long as HE would let his code stand on its own. The second Hans Reiser made the character of the other kernel developers an issue, his own character became an issue as well.
--
Reiserfs utilities (Score:5)
bash: ispell: command not found
Re:Distros... (Score:2)
SuSE Linux 7.1 [suse.com] ships on Feb. 12, with kernel 2.4 available during setup.
--
What changed? (Score:2)
final:
- Al Viro: core file hardlink attack avoidance fix
pre12:
- Get non-cpuid Cyrix probing right (it's not a NexGen)
- Jens Axboe: cdrom tray status and queing cleanups
(etc., etc.)
Does this mean that there is only one change in 2.4.1? Or are all those changes (listed under pre12 through pre8) included in the final?
Some of the changes under pre# would affect me (APCI, AGP, r128, eepro100 updates), but the one change under final would not (as far as I can tell). I'll probably still install it, but can anyone read these change files? Are these all changes to 2.4.1, or are these just the last few change cycles?
Dumb question (Score:2)
Re:yes, I am pleased, but... (Score:2)
I had to go to 2.4 because I need iptables. Aside from my packet filter machine, I'll probably stick with 2.2.18, just because I've got it finely tweaked and everything works perfectly.
So here's to no "upgrade now!" thumbscrews!
Re:Inaccurate claims (Score:2)
I thought about leaving that statement out of my post, but the fun of tweaking all the Linux trolls got the best of me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all of that changed. (Score:4)
No no no... (Score:4)
2.4.1:
As of 2.4.1, the kernel now conforms to the Open Naming Specification. According to the specification, any or all of the following pronunciations are considered "correct"; feel free to add your own!
I hope this helps.
Jay (=
Kernel? (Score:3)
Re:What changed? (Score:2)
Re:Ooops.. MegaRAID is _still_ broken (Score:2)
Someone will look at it over there. Mailing to Linus won't help you since he got nothing to do with AMI Megatrend..
Re:Any ext2 to reiserfs converters ? (Score:2)
Re:Kernel? (Score:2)
Nah - reverse the g and the n: Nergel - close enough to Nergal for me =)
Re:Isn't this a bit soon? (Score:2)
Umm, I can't figure out if you're serious or trolling or ignorant.
Linux drivers can, and are updaed independently of the kernel all the time. In fact, you can unload an old driver and load in a new driver all without rebooting. Your users might not even notice. No, it's not really a 'microkernel', but it shares a lot of a microkernel's features in that regard.
Windows requires a reboot every time you loaded a driver, last time I checked. Also, drivers conflicts and incompatibilities are rampant. One of the whole points of Windows 2000 was for Microsoft to start making sure that the drivers vendors released were lots less buggy so their system wouldn't BSOD as often as it used to.
Near as I can tell, while Windows NT/2000's might be based on a microkernel, it has no effect on the system as a whole aside from the additional technical marketing buzzwords people can use to describ it.
ReiserFS (Score:2)
Another thing is that apparently 2.4 was failing to boot on i386 machines [linuxcare.com]. It had something to do with the CPU's cache not being large enough i belive.
after looking at the change log think this might be it..
Fix UDF writepage() page locking
anyone know for sure?
-Jon
Streamripper [sourceforge.net]
Re:Isn't this a bit soon? (Score:2)
PS> Yea I know
Re:ReseirFS, finally! (Score:2)
Andre Hedrick (ide guy)is one strange cookie, here [slashdot.org] is the slashdot interview with him. Read his answers. Make any sense? Should this man be committed?
Regarding that hard drive copy protection:
Choices... by cnladd
I apologize for the open-endedness of this question, but I have to ask it anyways.
If this copy protection were to become mandatory, I can definately imagine the effects that it would cause. But what effects - both long and short term - do you feel this would cause?
Andre:
Sorry, I do not feel anything! If you wish to know what I THINK, then I will answer the question. The very nature of asking people how they feel about an issue allows one to wrap it in fuzzy language, and this is how we got into this mess. So THINK DAMN-IT do not FEEL, this is silicon and not flesh!
Think about all the software you own for backup -- WORTHLESS in a CPRM environment. OPEN wallets!!!!
Ever had a morning where you were not kissed and told "I love you," when the night before you SCREWED so wildly that you could not remember?
GOOD MORNING!!!!
Have fun using thier code, I know I do, and I get a real kick out of reading the kernel mailing list, too.
Re:Any ext2 to reiserfs converters ? (Score:2)
Shrink your ext2 filesystem. Create a reiserfs in now-free space. Copy data over. Delete ext2 filesystem and resize reiser-based fs to fill remaining space.
Okay, done. You don't have the ext2online patches? Means you'll have to use parted or PartitionMagic for the first step... a shame, that. You aren't using LVM? You'll have to move the ext2 partition to the back of the disk as well as resizing it (something parted won't do but PartitionMagic probably will) as a reiserfs partition can only online-extend from its tail.
Still quite doable.
Re:No no no... (Score:2)
Er, no. At least according to Linus: (Score:2)
"Hello, this is Linus (rhymes with `Guinness') Torvalds. And I pronounce Linux (rhymes with `cynics') Linux (still rhymes with `cynics')".
Re:ReiserFS (Score:2)
This might be referring to MicroUDF [also called UDF], the filesystem used on DVDs [as well as other devices] and integrated into stable kernels later than 2.2.16 and 2.4.0
Uh-oh! (Score:2)
If you've read the ChangeLog, you'll notice that there's a change for almost everything. Regardless of what you use your computer for, and update will probably help you out. Remove all your 2.4-ac patches and tack on the 2.4.1 series patch, then get the next AC patch due out in five minutes (Alan Cox has a LOT of time on his hands based on how fast his patches were released when 2.4 came - as many as 2 a day!).
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
Re:Troll Fugue in B# Major (Score:2)
Re:You sure its 2.4.1?? (Score:2)
You sure its 2.4.1?? (Score:4)
Re:2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z (Score:2)
PPC (Score:2)
--
Re:2.x.y is compatible fully with 2.x.z (Score:2)
Inaccurate claims (Score:2)
First of all, since the compiler is not bundled with the OS it could be released a few months after the OS. In the meantime making the beta available for people to use and test.
In fact, both companies have done this quite frequently.
Your characterization of closed-source companies while entertaining tends to ignore facts and history.
As far as the RedHat making it work better than it should... Need we remind you of that RameN Worm?
Re:Double Standard! (Score:3)
If MS released a patch or hotfix a week after a major release, it would be because of a horiffic bug or security hole. The *reason* for the release is important.
2.4.1 adds functionality. ReiserFS is a journaling filesystem that is now in the official kernel. That's good news.
Linux has had problems with 2.x.1 releases being les stable than 2.x.0. Linus intends this not to be the case.
Producing patches often is a good thing whether it fixes a bug or adds functionality. That dosn't mean that any patch or upgrade can't simultaneously represent an embarassment for a developer. That depends entirely on the reason for the release.
Re:You sure its 2.4.1?? (Score:2)
Re:Troll Fugue in B# Major (Score:2)
Hi! (Score:2)
I'm not sure if it meets your definition of a "fucking" source, but here's an article from CNN in 1998 that discusses in passing how NT 5 was supposed to ship in 1997.
--Shoeboy
Re:Isn't this a bit soon? (Score:3)
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
Re:Kernel Weirdness (Score:2)
Oceaneia has always been at war with Eurasia.
Aaaarrrgggghhhh! (Score:2)
Oh, nuts! And I'm literally in the middle of a 2.4.0 install right now!
Chelloveck
Re:Isn't this a bit soon? (Score:2)
I take it you have never bothered actually using any of Microsofts products.
Mirror: (Score:2)
Well, look at the bright side... (Score:2)
Re:What changed? (Score:2)
--
Re:Kernel Weirdness (Score:2)
When the compiler explodes, leaving pasta all over the walls, there is clearly a glitch that wasn't trapped.
Re:egcs no longer exists (Score:2)
But, yeah, you're right, bugs -are- going to crop up in snapshots. That's natural. That's why it's in CVS and not a final release.
On the other hand, IMHO, if you're on the leading edge, you're going to want to know what other leading edges yours is compatiable with. It's less stressing and more knowing the lay of the land.
Re:Signature on kernel invalid?? (Score:2)
Certainly their signing isn't totally bad. I'd suggest you try downloading from a different mirror and see if it comes out clean. You might also want to check your gpg version--I have 1.0.4.
Re:LIN-ix (short i as in "pit") (Score:2)
"Read as an english word linux is pronounced lie nucks. Read as a finnish word linux is pronounced lee nucks. Saying lynn (like the name) ucks is blatantly wrong. But, pronounciation of a word from another language is up to the speaker, and most people who speak english can't pronounce anything at all. So, although about 63% of the posters are wrong, it's up to them what they say."
Probably the best thing to do is to realize it's a microcultural thing. People in one company will call it LyeNicks, while the company across the street the people call it Linnukz.
Instead of dorkboy saying "I cannot have a serious conversation with someone that calls it LyeNicks", he should show himself as properly educated to the fact that people pronounce it differently depending on something obscure like the phase of the moon when they first heard about Linux.
Re:Distros... (Score:2)
It took almost no time to upgrade either, and they work fine.
1st Law Of Networking: Loose ends are bad, termination is good.
Re:Dumb question (Score:3)
You can use ipchains to control the filters, NAT, etc., I believe, but iptables is the new user-space tool du jour. The page for the project is http://netfilter.kernelnotes.org/. [kernelnotes.org] I can't make a personal testimonial yet, I haven't had much chance to play with iptables/netfilter/2.4.x firewalling.
--
Re: (Score:2)
Re:2.4.1 is DEVELOPMENT (Score:2)
I think the real versioning system is "anything less than x.x.20 is unstable, and anything with an odd middle version number is even more unstable."
Re:Mirror (Score:2)
Re:People, please use the mirrors! (Score:2)
Re:2.4.1 is DEVELOPMENT (Score:2)
Re:Its about damned time. (Score:2)
egcs no longer exists (Score:2)
I should know. I'm one of the conspirators that started egcs.
The egcs and FSF gcc projects merged in April 1999, and put out the first combined release (2.95) at the end of July 1999.
The GCC (not EGCS) snapshots represent ongoing development and occasionally something breaks. Please report such things, but don't stress about it; you should expect to find bugs in the snapshots.
Re:Your MCSE Buddy (Score:2)
Signature on kernel invalid?? (Score:3)
I did the following:
# gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 0x517D0F0E
then I did:
# gpg --verify linux-2.4.1.tar.gz.sign linux-2.4.1.tar.gz
gpg: Signature made Tue 30 Jan 2001 02:56:09 AM EST using DSA key ID 517D0F0E
gpg: BAD signature from "Linux Kernel Archives Verification Key "
And finally, just to be sure, I did:
# gpg --list-public-keys
/root/.gnupg/pubring.gpg
pub 1024D/517D0F0E 2000-10-10 Linux Kernel Archives Verification Key
sub 4096g/E50A8F2A 2000-10-10
Which looked valid to me.
Is the new kernel not signed properly, am I not doing this properly, or is something VERY BAD happening?
Re:The sweet irony (Score:2)
I guess you're happy then? [microsoft.com]
Re:Mirror: (Score:2)
I count seven minutes between the initial annoucement and the "go ahead" post.
Line-ix (Score:2)
Linux means LINus's UniX. In his original tongue, Linus pronounces it like Lee-nukes. Properly 'americanized', it is LYE-NIX/Line-ix.
There's a lot of Linux newbies out there that think that the correct pronounciation IS LINN-IX. Incorrect: Lennox makes air conditioners and refridgerators.
Funny that this guy is so confused that he is mistakenly informing people to pronounce it the WRONG way. :)
ReiserFS (Score:4)
- ReiserFS merge
Nice, nice, nice. Finally they agree.
Re:It's a bit different though... (Score:2)
I have a similar system and 2.4.0 worked great. The slight boost in kernel performance combined with reiserfs patch makes this Athlon box cook.
But my PII266 laptop is quite another story. 2.4.0 wouldn't detect the pcmcia network card, sound would not work AT ALL (despite it being a 100% SB clone), and the weirdest thing by far was the fact that I would find my BIOS settings cleared every time I rebooted. And this was on a (fairly standard) mobile 440BX chipset. I had to revert to 2.2.18 and everything's been fine since.
So, I think that I have to concur with people who warned folks like me not to upgrade to 2.4 unless they had a good reason to.
Re:Mirror: (Score:2)
because open source is about choice (Score:2)
Because automatically directing to a server based on location tends to take away people's choices. (This can be worked around, but I'm referring to what is common practice these days.) What happens when the mirror is not up to date? Or the page is gone (404'd)? Or the server is down?
I personally like to select my own mirrors so that I can choose who I download from. In other words, I will almost always choose the server of a for-profit corporate entity than that of a university or non-profit organization when downloading something as large as a kernel tarball.
Plus, the people who run the kernel.org page reason that anyone downloading and building their own kernels ought to be smart enough to figure out to get to a mirror.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Its about damned time. (Score:4)
and professional houses ship things late all the time too, NT 5 was supposed to ship in '97.
But I think some criticism of the slowness of kernel updates is self inflicted.
Don't you recall the heady days of 1998 when all the linux advocates were boasting about the speed of releases and proclaiming open source as a magic bullet that would lead to instant release and completely bug free code?
I think that the linux community is now suffering from a backlash brough on by having had too many advocates who were assholes, see Nick Petreley for a good example.
If you don't want to face heavy bitter criticism, don't make outrageous claims.
And for the love of God, read the linux-advocacy-howto.
--Shoeboy
Re:Signature on kernel invalid?? (Score:2)
The
Re:Signature on kernel invalid?? (Score:2)
It has now been confirmed on multiple (more than 3) : Hosts, distros, ftp clients used to download, mirrors, AND versions of gpg.
The
Re:Signature on kernel invalid?? (Score:2)
Thank you very much.
Remember, it always pays to be paranoid.
Re:because open source is about choice (Score:2)
Of course I suppose if they can handle all these requests piling up on the main ftp.kernel.org site then that's their business...
What is this "kernel"? (Score:3)
What is this mysterious "kernel" package I keep hearing about? Have we finally come into the new world order where all operating systems run on one kernel that does not need a name? God bless America, I knew we'd standardize someday.
Note: this post is sarcastic, just in case you're wondering.
Re:NVidia Drivers (Score:2)
Don't hold me to this, but if you download the cvs of Xfree86 there is most likely a dri module for the GeForce2 by now (since they got the accelerated server, I bet they are workin on the dri module in due course).
2.4.2 (Score:3)
(Well, sort of)
---
Check in...OK! Check out...OK!
Re:Its about damned time. (Score:5)
For the other side of this, consider Redhat 7.x. Their business plan called for a release when the compiler they wanted wasn't ready. In the closed-source paradigm, they would have called it ready and shipped bugs. Since the compiler is GPL'd they had to explicitly ship a beta compiler, and we got some fair warning about those bugs which we wouldn't have gotten from Microsoft or Sun. By the way, Redhat has done a wonderful job of making that work far better than it should, to judge by the reports of people who have been using it. In the usual closed-source, proprietary course of events, a closed source vendor such as Sun or MS would have denied the bugs, threatened customers to try to hush things up, and the folks who laid out big bucks for the bugs would have had to pay for an upgrade.
How is Linux ever to become a commercial success/serious platform if development takes years? Same way it's been getting there all along, I guess, by being so much better than the stuff that's rushed out the door to keep the marketing department happy.
Ooops.. MegaRAID is _still_ broken (Score:2)
2.4.0: broken.
2.4.1: still broken.
Just a little bit of a problem for people who sensibly are using a megaraid card for their root filesystem.
I just mailed Linus...
Re:good kernal install instructions (Score:2)
Re:Its about damned time. (Score:2)
Did I just lump the open source management community into the same bucket as Microsoft? Guess I did. Around /. I know that's quite a politically incorrect thing to do, but it is accurate. Software development problems are software development problems, regardless of the passion of the developers. Open Source management needs to wake up and smell the coffee or the open source projects like this will all get the reputation of untested, underdeveloped hackware.
Kernel Weirdness (Score:5)
("Stable" EGCS releases are fine. CVS snapshots older than 2-3 weeks ago seem to work, also, but no guarantee that the binaries'll actually do anything useful.)
I've reported the bug to the EGCS developers, as internal errors are definitely a compiler bug, EVEN IF it's also a kernel bug.
Having written all this, I'm now wondering if I'm the only Slashdotian insane enough to use bleeding-edge software compiled with other bleeding-edge software on production machines...
Re:Double Standard! (Score:2)
However, 2.4.0 was the major Linux oddity. True open sourcers follow the creed 'Release Early, Release Often' (RERO). Linus probably deservedly got a lot of flak for the long time delay between 2.2 and 2.4. In the end I think 2.4.0 got released just in order to try and impose a 'feature freeze' and stop various developers trying to get their new whiz bang feature in before the shutters came down.
There is a conflict between RERO and another Open Source aphorism which is 'Its Ready when Its Ready', which means that we as a community don't like to give out release timetables of longer than a few weeks; in other words we try not to speak of vapourware.
I have no objection to rapid patches, which is not something MS is known for, although thankfully MS quality appears to be improving with the latest version of IE and Windows 2K.
Re:Double Standard! (Score:4)
A GNU/Linux kernel upgrade is a different beast than a Service Pack. An SP often breaks existing software without warning, or changes functionality. A new kernel does all these things, and sometimes more, but its part of a (somewhat) known development path, and its largely an optional thing. I have machines running 2.0.36 happily, and 2.2.18 as well. Since all machines in question are uniprocessor and have fully functioning hardware drivers, I have no need go to 2.4. I'll wait until there's a need or maybe I just want to play around. The same cannot be said of SP's which often roll up critical security fixes and performance hacks.
Now, I'll agree to statements about the pace of kernel development being... off (patches every other day for a week after months between patches?) but for the most part, you're comparing apples and oranges.
It's a bit different though... (Score:2)
Plus, I didn't even have to pay for Linux.
Re:Double Standard! (Score:2)
If I had any mod points left, I'd give you one. However, let me take a slightly different POV just for the sake of discussion.
The OS philosophy is different than the MS philosophy. The MS philosophy is that of a traditional (closed) software shop. Consumers expect that when the doors open and a new product is released, that it be "good" and usable in all ways. We don't want to have to keep updating, patching, and fixing it. Isn't that what they were doing behind those closed doors, after all? In the OS world, everything's open for peer review. We know exactly how the process is coming along, and can participate in it. We don't have to wait for "perfection" because we understand that everything is just another step in the process. In fact, waiting for the "finished product" would mean waiting forever, because there's always one more feature or one more performance tweak to get in.
What I'm aiming at here is that the MS's of the world release products, but the OS world releases features. It's simply the difference in the philosophy of development between the two.
People, please use the mirrors! (Score:5)
ftp://ftp.COUNTRYCODE.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel
Where country code is your country, eg uk for uk, us for the us, nl for holland etc etc.
I everyone keeps downloading from the main site then it creates problems for the mirrors, which believe me is a bad thing
--
yes, I am pleased, but... (Score:2)
my 2.2.18 rocks damn' well...
Why should I change ?
To discover the evil of technological inflation ?
No, thanks, I am not missing the windows community ?
--