Linux Kernel 2.4.21 Released 539
An anonymous reader writes "After > 6 months of waiting, 2.4.21 is here. Lots of cleanups, and a patch which gives a MAJOR boost to the 'feel' of the system under heavy disk IO, especially on IDE systems. As usual, available from your local kernel.org mirror or ftp.COUNTRYCODE.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/! Tidbit: 'Current bandwidth utilization 131.72 Mbit/s '." See the Changelog for new stuff.
unstable 2.5 (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Admin Question (Score:5, Insightful)
If the server(s) is/are performing correctly, why bother upgrading? What will it buy you? Just apply security patches and don't tinker with anything else.
RedHat kernels (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Be gentle to the mirrors (Score:3, Insightful)
bzcat
make oldconfig
blah blah blah
And you people still wonder why so many people stick to Windows instead of trying Linux? When I can double-click an icon and click OK and have it install the updates give me a call.
What do you expect? Vanilla kernel compiles/updates aren't for the average joe. They can wait for their easy distro update.
Re:Be gentle to the mirrors (Score:2, Insightful)
> When I can double-click an icon and click OK and have it install the updates give me a call.
Should we let you know when it gets oppressive EULAs and DRM controlled by a single company too? I wouldn't hold your breath.
Re:BitTorrent (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, right, and people should be writing in Esperanto on their Dvorak layout keyboards, too, but that's about the same likelihood.
If they _really_ want people to actually use the patches, they should release the patches first, wait about a week, THEN release the full kernels. Evil, I know.
Linux Tech. Support (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, running an RC on a production box isn't really bright, but instead of explaining that (and yes, it really shouldn't have to be explained), the typical response to any such Linux-related questions usually is something to the effect of "You're a fucking moron, RTFM".
Not a good way to establish the Linux community as a helpful technical resource, my friends.
Re:Linux Tech. Support (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:why not posting the http links instead of the f (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Disc IO Related Lockups? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Disc IO Related Lockups? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why does windows lock up tight whenever you need to delete a large file? Windows falls to pieces whenever your doing anything with high IO. Feel free to lower the priority of the high IO process because that's the only way you'll even be able to open Notepad once a high IO task starts in Windows 2k/XP. You really think explorer isn't a crippled piece of shit? Windows doesn't do anything that could be called multitaking once you have a process hogger. At least with linux there are patches which can make it useable under the most severe loads.
Nice try though.
Re:Looks good.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is a known problem, if: (Score:1, Insightful)
I assume that ide-scsi was mentioned since this problem is caused by the ide-scsi module. Since there are no programs for burning without SCSI emulation that I know of, this does happen for every IDE burner.
Re:oops! My bad.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Debian prides itself on an enormous amount of packages... nearly twice as many, counting bytes, as RedHat provides. To attempt to download "a copy of Debian" is wrong and wasteful. The fun of Debian comes in when you decide, on the spur of the moment, to try some exotic free software program and can apt-get it in a much less time that it would take to even figure out the name of the RPM you'd need to install on a "normal" Linux system.
Even if the desired install computer doesn't have fast internet access, burning 7 CDs is excessive. There probabably won't even be 2 CDs worth of packages you really want to install. Of the top ten largest packages [debian.org] in Debian, six of them are only desirable for hardcore software developers.
Re:Linux Tech. Support (Score:1, Insightful)
If I should conclude the whole Linux community is exemplified by that person's post, then I should also conclude that most atheists, Christians, conservatives, libertarians, Americans, and Europeans are assholes too, based upon the posts frequently seen here.
Re:oops! My bad.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if you install packages from CD-Rom, you'll use the same interface as if you were getting it live from HTTP. The only difference is that it'll prompt you to insert the right disc first... and since most packages are small, it'll often take more time for you to find the disc than to just get it from the server.
You didn't mention if you had downloaded the stable or testing Debian... testing is generally prefered, because it's not as painfully obselete. If you value stability, "stable" is good of course. But if you want to have fun and experiment, then newer is better. And if you're using "testing", then you'll probably want to keep up with changes made after the CDs were burnt. Debian "testing" CD-Roms go obselete really fast.
I don't know why you have a problem with the naming of RPMs. I find that it is usually the same as the program or package name.
RPM names also contain at least the version string, and often an indication of which architecture the software will run on. Sometimes supported OS versions are mixed in too. For example, when I tried to install a package [rpmfind.net] on a Red Hat system, I had to download that RPM. Then go to install it, and find out I needed multiple other RPMs [rpmfind.net] first, which need even more RPMs [rpmfind.net] to work.
The point of apt-get is you, the installing user, never even see the *.deb file that the package actually comes in. The hunt for dependencies is completely hidden from you.
Of course, RedHat users can optionally run apt-get themselves, but that's not formally supported by the distribution developer.
I won't go into the whole problem of not getting *.deb files for new, bleeding edge software. It's an accepted fact that Debian users who wish to try something brand-new will be compiling it themselves.