Kernel 2.4.2 Released 200
Three weeks after 2.4.1 hit the streets, 2.4.2 is now available. Here's the Changelog, and here's the download link that I know you're looking for.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell
Re:192 days? My MS Whistler has you beat (Score:1)
Cool. So you didn't apply any security patches. Can I have the IP of this machine, please ?
Cheers,
--fred
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:1)
Am I the only one who spots the spelling error here?
hmmmm. (Score:2)
Ahem! (Score:4)
2.2.2 (Score:1)
Re:2.2.2 (Score:1)
If so, that would be even cooler, with 2.2.2 on 2/22 and 2.4.2 on 2/22.
jesus.. (Score:1)
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:Additional misspelling patch... (Score:2)
--
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:1)
but . . . (Score:2)
Tannenbaum lost . . .
hawk
yes, but (Score:2)
Hippocracy (Score:3)
hippocracy, n. The use of one hippo-like status (i.e., fat, bloated, and heavy) in the market to squish competitors. see also "Microsoft"
:)
hawk, who knows better than to flame spilling, but this was just to juicy
Re:Anyone know...? (Score:1)
*cackles outrageously*
Somehow, I just don't see stability and me mixing. :)
Anyone know...? (Score:2)
It's good for Linus to want to keep the 2.4.x kernels stable, but at the same time, I don't want to "downgrade" to a later kernel. :)
Re:Last Palindromic Release (Score:1)
Re:Anyone know...? (Score:2)
So if you like the experimental stuff, go with 2.4.2-ac1. If you prefer stability, go with 2.4.2.
Re:...And A Patch Close Behind It. (Score:1)
Jason.
2.4.2 fixed a seriously critical bug for us (Score:2)
Jason.
O'Reilly (Score:1)
Try O'Reilly.
---
cramfs? (Score:2)
But have you tried cramfs? It works pretty well for systems that are relatively static - I don't think you can use it on
...well, as soon as the loopback bug gets fixed.
---
Re:Fascinating idea (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/search?q=cramfs
---
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:2)
Look at your login screen, dumbass. (Score:2)
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:2)
Exactly how long did it take you to figure that out? I'm sure it wasn't so intuitive that you just knew. First you have to know to right-click, rather than left-click, to get the properties menu. That alone is nothing I would call more intuitive than looking at the login screen (You don't even have to log in...) and about equal with the uname -r as far as intuitiveness.
Open you mind a bit, remember that there was a day that you were just as lost with Windows as you seem to be currently with Linux. You'll learn, it'll get easier.
They may not be able to make it fool-proof, but they can already use it to show proof of fools.
Re:Sid? (Score:1)
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:1)
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:1)
Re:New 2.4.x Compilation issues under Debian unsta (Score:1)
Re:New 2.4.x Compilation issues under Debian unsta (Score:1)
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:1)
The major problem people have with service packs is that they are huge.
A service pack is likely to introduce half the number of bugs it fixes, if you are unlucky one of the new bugs will affect you.
In the linux world we have kernel releases more often. You can upgrade if you want to, if you are satisfied with the older kernel but need a bug fixed you can usually patch just that bug.
You usually won't get much help from Microsoft unless you are running the latest service pack. If you don't they will tell you to install it.
There is another rather huge difference also, this is a kernel release. A Windows Service Pack can affect anything on the system while a kernel upgrade usually only affects the kernel.
New 2.4.x Compilation issues under Debian unstable (Score:2)
I'm not too sure what's going on, some can someone help me: I downloaded 2.4.2 and was hapily compiling it until at the end of "make bzImage" I got an error about ld not being able to find "binary." The line in the makefile was something along the lines of:
ld -elf [..] -s -oformat binary bootsect.s bootsect.o
(forgive me if I'm a little off, I'm away from the machine at the moment..)
I quickly flipped through the ld manpage and saw that -oformat is a valid option. I then tried recompiling 2.4.1 which I had installed cleanly when it came out and got the same problem. I looked at the Makefile in 2.2.18 and there is no -oformat for the ld call there.. at last I can still compile it..
Does anyone have any ideas about what my problem is? I don't know too much about the Gnu linker, but it looks like maybe the version in sid doesn't jove with the Linux kernel..
Help?
Ben
Re:Sid? (Score:2)
Ben
Re:192 days? My MS Whistler has you beat (Score:1)
YMMV
sinan
Matrox G450 patches? (Score:1)
Thanks,
Stuart.
Re:Journaling Filesystems? (Score:1)
Furthermore, you can't run NFS of a ReiserFS partition yet
I could swear that I was sharing a couple of ReiserFS volumes over NFS last summer... Yeah, I must've, because the whole lab ran exclusively Reiser (installed with SuSE). NFS doesn't care what file system is below it, it's a user-space thing (except when it's a kernel-space thing, in which case it still shouldn't even know what FS is underneath it).
Re:Journaling Filesystems? (Score:1)
BTW, what's up with this:
Slow down cowboy!
Slashdot requires you to wait 1 minute between each submission of
It's been 1 minute since your last submission!
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:1)
If your webserver is so busy that a compressed filesystem adversely affects your performance, then obviously a compressed filesystem would be a poor choice. On the other hand, if you have a very lightly used web server with a large volume of data, then it might be a good idea.
Nice to have the option
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:2)
Re:coding and maintaining (Score:1)
If you know C++, then C's easy. It's just C++ without all the good parts.
Re:GCC compatibility (Score:1)
I don't think you can compile it with the 'new' compiler that came with Redhat 7.0, but I'm not sure.
Re:Journaling Filesystems? (Score:1)
However, last time I checked, ReiserFS didn't support quota (this may have changed, I'm sure patches exist). It also doesn't support a bad-block map, so be carefull with partially damaged harddisks.
Furthermore, you can't run NFS of a ReiserFS partition yet.
ReiserFS is very fast. You can really notice difference to ext2, mainly in large directories.
Re:Matrox G450 patches? (Score:1)
Yes, hardly scientific, but it works.
Re:Best way of reporting problems (Score:1)
Then, when you know what version broke the driver, you may or may not investigate further on your own. You might want to try some 2.4.2-preX kernel to futher pin down the breakage.
Eventually, just file a bug report to the Linux kernel mailing list [tux.org]. Be sure to be as accurate as possible: describe your hardware and the symptoms as exact as possible.
Re:Journaling Filesystems? (Score:1)
Open BSD 2.7, FreeBSD, and perhaps NetBSD if I have the time (Then again, I might make it a Solaris box).
I am unfamiliar with BSD, hence why I wish to try it, what are softdeps? The term reminds me of "symlink" for some reason (as in the way a symlink appears on the inode table).
Re:Interesting... (Score:1)
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:1)
Windows service packs affect more code than just the kernel. They don't allow me to selectively fix what I want, either. And they tend to break more than they fix.
With the linux kernel updates I can update just the kernel, rather than the kernel, the webserver and the kitchen sink. If I want to upgrade the webserver I'll do that separately, thank you. Also, I honestly see fewer changes in between 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 (or 2.4.0 and 2.4.2, really) than the average service pack fixes.
It isn't about how often updates are required, it's about whether those updates are out when I need them (esspecially security fixes) and how much control I have over running them. And not breaking more stuff.
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:1)
--Phil
Re:SLOW DOWN (Score:2)
The other alternative is to stick with 2.2.19 or 2.0.39.
Small drives. (Score:4)
--
Re:comparisons? (Score:1)
You can't buy Whistler at Fry's or anywhere else. You'll never be able to buy Whister... only Windows XP. Unless you're using some weird pre-alpha, Whistler builds haven't even been around for 342 days.
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:1)
The benefits of linux release methodology over the Microsoft release methodology:
- I can quickly get a sense of what is being improved with each kernel release by looking at the changes notice that is included with each kernel.
- I can find in depth discussion of some changes by following the kernel development list or the major discussion by reading the kernel traffic summaries that are published weekly at http://kt.zork.net/kernel-traffic/latest.html [zork.net]
- I can go read the code in the kernel to try to discern what is going on
- I can try to contact a kernel developer directly to seek information on a particular improvement
- I can offer my own improvements to the code
- I can tell what the benefits or a particular improvement are and who will benefit from this improvement
- I do not have to blindly go forth into the mire of a service pack and hope that it fixes a problem in a correct and well thought out manner and hope that it truly offers a benefit and does not only serve the interests of one entity
Does this mean that some bad ideas don't get brought into kernel releases? No. Does this mean that I have to expend less effort in deciding upon and then executing a update of my system? No. But I do have more tools available and better information to help me to decide if this is the right decision.
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:1)
Includes
And this really doesn't give me much to chomp on with regard to if this is a good idea for my system. And considering that I may not be running exchange, may not be serving NNTP, and may not be running two virtual NNTP servers on my box, is this something that I need anyways? And how do I judge this on it's merits? There is little diagnostic information available and basically they ask for blind trust in a situation which time and time again they have shown that they are not deserving of it.
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:1)
Then why should the solution?
> You can understand kernel source code, but can't read English. Are you a bot?
Yes, ofcourse I'm a bot. In fact, I'm the first bot to be able to understand kernel source code and evaluate it's effectiveness for use. You should fear for your job!
Re:Interesting... (Score:1)
Re:Reiser FS (Score:1)
HURD features (Score:2)
Sid? (Score:2)
and which unreleased version of Whistler is this? (Score:2)
Re:SLOW DOWN (Score:3)
Staying on the bleeding edge does sting, that's why they call it that...
Kevin Fox
--
Re:...And A Patch Close Behind It. (Score:2)
Maybe they need to add a make spellcheck step to kernel compilation.
--
Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:1)
When will the kernel support default compression of filesystems.
coding and maintaining (Score:1)
Well bitch here's the rundown.
1. learning all the ins and outs of the kernel is a full time job in itself. I don't have the time to spend 6 months learning exactly what goes where.
2. C coding is not taught in any standard form in current university settings. I have learned Pascal, C++, bash, ksh, and csh but I never touched C because it wasn't formally taught.
3. Writing kernel code is approximately 200% harder and more precise than writing an application program.
4. I don't have expertise levels of OS design.
Those things being stated I feel that at least on the surface once those things have been removed it wouldn't take say Linux or Alan Cox much more than 5 minutes of their time to get it working once and for all. Basically you just have something sitting above the call to storing or writing data and have your favorite compression algorithm there to act as an intermediary.
I hope this is more lucid than your reply.
Re: Get what you need (Score:2)
Don't just go out and grab 2.4.2...
From Linus's announcement:
The IDE driver bug that Russell found has, to my knowledge, never been shown to happen on anything but his ARM machine, but for all we know it could be quite bad even on x86. Similarly, the elevator bug could cause corruption, but probably has not actually bit people in practice. But both are definitely deadly...
I don't know about you, but I think this may be significant and worth the upgrade if you use IDE in your systems.
Additional misspelling patch... (Score:2)
<duck>
Re:Journaling Filesystems? (Score:2)
I use Mandrake 7.1 (current is 7.2) which has reiserfs - I use it for all my non-root filesystems to avoid the fsck checks.
Re:The new kernel (Score:4)
Glad to hear that you are going to do the rewrite. The source is all there. Are you setting up your efforts on sourceforge or will you just announce it view usenet ala Linus?
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:2)
You might be surprised. When I was playing with a local news spool I had to reformat the partition because I ran out of inodes. At the same time I dropped the blocksize from the default 4k to 2k, and recovered nearly 1 GB out of a 4 GB partition.
Further research showed that the average file size was around 5k, so it required 8k of disk space (3k unused). A 2k blocksize required 6k of disk space (1k unused). A 1k blocksize freed up even more space.
If you have a lot of small files you can eat up a surprising amount of disk space in the tail of your files.
Re:comparisons? (Score:2)
Downloaded 2.4.1 and tried to compile it. It broke things in the RD distro. Downloaded the most current iptables and recompile the 2.4.0-99..whatever RH kernel. iptables still would not work.
Today, out of a whim, I downloaded and recompiled 2.4.2. Not only did it compile without any issues, but iptables works as well (imagine that).
Can't wait to see tomorrow if, when I reboot, that it tells me nfsstatd didn't start like 2.4.0 and 2.4.1 did when I recompiled. Well, I gotta see, recompiled the kernel from home and it just sounds too good to be true.
RD
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:2)
That is what people don't like about MS Win2k. Linus never claimed that 2.4.0 would be bugfree (or if he did, he did it tongue-in-cheek). If MS had more truth in their advertising, I know I'd be happier.
--
Re:The new kernel (Score:2)
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem? WHY?!?!?!?! (Score:2)
.technomancer
Permanent compressed filesystem? WHY?!?!?!?! (Score:3)
.technomancer
Re:The new kernel (Score:2)
But, if you don't like how things are going with the linux kernel, nobody is stopping you from starting your own fork of the linux kernel. Import the whole source tree into your own CVS repository, get some developers and get some work done.
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:3)
All those things don't well, if at all, so a compressed filesystem would just be redundant. The exegz thing might help some, but stripping your binaries is probably just about as good without the runtime performance hit. And I'd think that even if you compressed your whole root partition with a scheme like this, the savings would be negligible but everything you did would require packing/unpacking stuff so the whole system would be generally slower.
With the ever expanding size of hard drives, I think this is a pretty small issue.
Yes, I realize that maybe single floppy distros and embedded devices may find this kind of thing useful, but I'm talking about the other 95% of the linux community here.
Re: Get what you need (Score:2)
You haven't read the fscking Changelog have you?! 2.4.2 fixes a serious IDE multimode write bug. If anyone has even somewhat-modern IDE hard drives in their system, it is certainly worth their while to get it.
I think SCSI-only boxen can wait, though -- but Linux was (and still is, to a degree) all about Unix on low-cost x86 hardware, so methinks there be plenty of IDE-based Linux systems around...
--
Serious IDE Write Bug in 2.4.1 Fixed in 2.4.2 (Score:3)
-pre2:
- Russell King: fix serious IDE multimode write bug!
If you have IDE hard drives, I recommend you pop 2.4.2 into place purdy quick. Write bug == bad.
--
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:4)
Buy windows 2000 and you have to download 1 service pack and thats means its a terrible OS that needs constant patching. Download linux 2.4.0 then 2.4.1 and then 2.4.2 in less than half that timespan and rather than meaning that 2.4.0 was a terrible OS that needs constant patching it is an innovative OS with a rapid turnaround. Am I the only one who spots the hipocracy here?
I see no hypocrisy.
First, when I make a judgement like that about a Microsoft product, it's not because of the number of service packs. I realize that all software of that complexity has bugs. It's instead that their software doesn't work well for me, even after applying all the service packs. Their service packs just don't seem to fix all the important problems for me, no matter how many I apply. For example, I've patched my Windows 98 system to the latest Windows Update stuff, but I'm still having some weird problems with Internet Explorer.
Second, Linux x.y.z releases are not just bugfix releases. In this case, it probably is...x.y.[1-5] typically are. But there are many new features introduced in point releases. 2.2.18 (or was it 2.2.19?), for example, backported USB support to the 2.2 series. I see a lot of important new features introduced in new Linux point releases, which I don't see in Windows service packs. Having a specific x.y just means the basic architecture is constant, not that the feature set is.
Third, as someone else mentioned, you don't need to upgrade to a new kernel revision to fix a bug. You have the source code, and you have the full patches. If you just want to fix one bug, you can do that. You don't have that option with Microsoft code, since it's not open-source.
People will complain about anything these days (Score:3)
Last Palindromic Release (Score:3)
Re:...And A Patch Close Behind It. (Score:5)
André Dahlqvist is fusing the line between English major and CS major.
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:3)
The first number is a major code change, fundamental in nature. After about 7 years we are now up to 2.x.x. The second number also shows major revisions, but of a less fundamental variety than the first number. An odd second number denotes a development series, not intended to be used for production computers. This is why most users went from 2.0.x to 2.2.x to 2.4.x, because 2.1.x and 2.3.x were development versions. When the development version is deemed stable enough to be used in some production platforms, it moves to an even second number, like the recent 2.4.0. However, the 2.2.x kernel series is still being maintained for use as an ultra-stable kernel, while the 2.4.x is more cutting-edge for the latest hardware support and performance.
The third number indicates a small change, usually bugfixes but some small amounts of new features supported. When going to purchase new hardware it is easy to tell if you have a "2.2.0 or later kernel".
Finally, a service pack generally implies a large set of bugfixes, as Microsoft had somewhere around 7 (maybe 8) for NT 4. The Linux Kernel version system allows for a few small changes to be made at every release, decreasing the waiting time for users to wait for a desired bugfix or feature (instead of months for a new service pack).
If my overgeneralization of the Linux kernel was incorrect, my apologies, but I think an overall understading of how the Linux Kernel numbering system works is important for those who don't know yet.
Re:Serious IDE Write Bug in 2.4.1 Fixed in 2.4.2 (Score:2)
Re:Interesting that you should say that. (Score:3)
Re: Get what you need (Score:2)
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Currently, 2.4.1 is the latest "something for everyone" kernel, and only because of a change in memory handling. Read the changelogs before downloading the kernels and see if there is anything you'll actually USE!
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
Re:New 2.4.x Compilation issues under Debian unsta (Score:5)
Aparently this has been known about for a couple weeks and a patch has been made but for some reason didn't make it in 2.4.2
--
Garett
Re:The new kernel (Score:2)
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:5)
Because the linux advocates constantly criticise microsofts service packs means of upgrading. Buy windows 2000 and you have to download 1 service pack and thats means its a terrible OS that needs constant patching. Download linux 2.4.0 then 2.4.1 and then 2.4.2 in less than half that timespan and rather than meaning that 2.4.0 was a terrible OS that needs constant patching it is an innovative OS with a rapid turnaround.
Am I the only one who spots the hipocracy here?
Re:Interesting that you should say that. (Score:3)
--
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:2)
I don't know if that makes much difference. Let's say SP 1 == kernel x.y.1 through 5. How many people will be running x.y.5 without the changes introduced in the 2->3 transition? Yes, I know you can do it and yes, I know how to do it. But realistically there's almost no one doing that. For most users, using kernel x.y.z means using all the patches introduced between 0 and z.
Re:192 days? My MS Whistler has you beat (Score:2)
How does the fact that an NT box somewhere has a 3 day uptime means the guy you're responding to doesn't have a 342 day uptime?
And why are you assuming that whatever web server Netcraft is tracking is part of the Datacenter Server setup that's supposed to be providing the 99.999% uptime?
Come on, my Linux box at home isn't even on now - does that mean Linux doesn't run at all?
...And A Patch Close Behind It. (Score:3)
Alan Cox is doing that voodoo he do do: LWN report on 2.4.2ac1 [lwn.net]. Also, the ftp link [kernel.org].
More on 2.4.2 from the LWN is here [lwn.net].
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem? WHY?!?!?!?! (Score:3)
Two words: embedded linux.
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:2)
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:2)
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:2)
You're missing the point. Any file that gets read more than once is likely to be in the cache. Just depends on how much RAM you have. As for
Re:Permanent compressed filesystem support (Score:3)
Use gzexe - which needs no special kernal magic, or apply the ext2compr patch to the kernel, which isn't that great.
Tell ya what (Score:2)
Maybe they are too busy taking on operating systems that people actually use to worry about conforming to an academic's idea of how software should be architected..
That sounds like I'm advocating market share over correctness, but I'm not. I'm saying that "correctness" is in the eye of the beholder. And the beholders who agree with you and Tannenbaum haven't made much headway in the Real World whereas Linus has.
--
http://www.geekizoid.com/article.pl?sid=01/03/03/
Re:192 days? My MS Whistler has you beat (Score:2)
It goes on to say how much better the coffee is and how much happier customers are because of Windows 2000.
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=www.sta
However, this is one of the sites that netcraft tracks for uptime.
Note: Uptime - the time since last reboot is explained in the FAQ
Plotted Value : Windows 2000
No. samples : 250
Max : 215.28
Latest : 3.18
3 days uptime is not something to brag about, Microsoft. Do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth, but only after shooting it.
This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:5)
Re:This kernel numbering is confusing (Score:2)