

Serious Bug In 2.4.15/2.5.0 498
John Ineson writes: "There is a bug in the latest kernel releases, that causes fs corruption on umount. A lot of people have already been hit by this, so for now I suggest you hold fire on booting those new kernels. More dead-duck than greased-turkey. Two possible fixes are being discussed on linux-kernel."
Colin Bayer adds links to a story at the Register and Al Viro's fix. Update: 11/25 00:39 GMT by T : Tarkie writes "Linux 2.4.16-pre1 is out, as detailed at NewsForge. If you've been having the filesystem corruptions, might be worth a try so that 2.4.16 can be out ASAP!"
Filesystems (Score:2)
Re:Filesystems (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Filesystems (Score:2)
I hate it when these things happen, espically when I'm fighting with ieee1394 bugs and patches..
I though I screwed it up so re-image my dev box with a new RH7.2
Ack, tis the price for living on the bleeding edge.
Re:Filesystems (Score:5, Interesting)
Also of help might be the Alt+SysRq keys; if you sync the drives and unmount them in single user mode before reboot, you should reduce or eliminate the corruption.
Stick with 2.4.15-pre8 (Score:2, Informative)
Fun with Version Numbers (Score:2)
So, will we start seeing -post releases?
Heh. I can see it now. 2.4.15-post1 :)
Re:Version 2.3? (Score:2)
Odd minor version numbers are unstable (so 2.1, 2.3 and 2.5 are all unstable kernel branches).
Re:Stick with 2.4.15-pre8 (Score:2)
Re:Stick with 2.4.15-pre8 (Score:2)
Does anyone know... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does anyone know... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Does anyone know... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why the rush between the pre9 and final versions? Why the lack of QA? Are the kernel developers rushing to meet a deadline or something?
Alot of people complain that Open Source projects develop too slowly, and cite the slow pace of Mozilla and Gnome as an example.
Pro-OSS folks say "That's a BENEFIT to the OSS model, we don't rush things through the door before they are ready, therefore there are less bugs in our released products.
But here we are, with a product that was rush, and that was released with a serious bug.
Re:Does anyone know... (Score:2, Insightful)
On the contrary... Pro-OSS folks who know what they're talking about will say that one of the benefits of the OSS model is "release early, release often". They'd also point out that while really show stopping bugs will make their way in to a stable release (of whatever project we're talking about), just as they'll make their way into the stable releases of closed-source projects, with OSS software you're not forced to wait till some company finally decides to admit there's a problem and release a patch.
Anyone who says that all releases of OSS software are inherently more stable and secure than closed source software is a moron. And anyone who says that all releases of closed source software are inherently more stable and secure than OSS software is also a moron.
Dinivin
Re:Does anyone know... (Score:2)
The advantage with OSS is that you get frequent releases, which enables you to keep up with development and test the upcoming version to see if it works for you. But that doesn't help much when the upcoming version gets changed and then released without testing.
Of course, there is the other advantage: that the person responsible for a bad bug in a final version will actually spend the day after thanksgiving fixing it, so that this sort of accident gets fixed in a day or two.
Re:Does anyone know... (Score:2)
Or at least that's what most people here say when much less serious problems happen in Microsoft software.
But since it's Linux, it must just be bad luck dude!
If you are already running it... (Score:3, Funny)
Make sure you have removed ext3 option, too (Score:2, Informative)
Make sure you have reset the journaling flag on your filesystems, because your older kernel will not mount an unclean ext3 volume.
Do a "tune2fs -O ^has_journal
Re:If you are already running it... (Score:4, Informative)
You're pretty much guaranteed to corrupt your
filesystem this way. Probably nothing fsck
couldn't fix, but still.
Other posters have suggested that you use
"shutdown -F" after running "sync",
and rebooting into a NON-2.4.15 kernel.
"sync" will write all the unsaved data to
the disk, and "shutdown -F" will cause
an fsck to start after rebooting.
PM
Re:If you are already running it... (Score:2)
Re:to clarify (Score:2)
Re:to clarify (Score:2, Informative)
telinit S
kill everything but your shell
sync
unmount everything but root
sync
reboot
A fix... (Score:4, Informative)
ftp://ftp.us.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/a
FS corruption? (Score:2, Interesting)
PS> Don't flame me please. I just wiped Win2K off my harddrive this morning. Luckily, I downloaded the 2.4.15 tree but have been too lazy to compile it yet.
Re:FS corruption? (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought the reason for installing *nix's was so you'd never have to shut down? Therefore this should not be a problem.
Now does this occur during *any* unmounting operation? Manually vs Shutdown?
Oh, and be-fan, don't install XP and use Ext3 (hey, that rhymes) because if XP uses your Ext3 as swap space and 2.4.15 corrupts itself...woah, double whammy.
Hey, any chance of getting iTunes 2.0 on Linux and Windows? Wanna play Russian Roulette...with an Uzi?
Whip me, beat me, make me write bad checks (or install windows...same same)
Re:FS corruption? (Score:5, Insightful)
Its better to compare Windows 2000 to another complete operating system, NOT a bleeding edge kernel. Compare Windows 2000 to Debian (stable), and Windows 2000 will look like a house of cards.
Re:FS corruption? (Score:2)
Re:FS corruption? (Score:2)
Really... (Score:2, Insightful)
NO! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Really... (Score:2, Interesting)
The "stable" tree (which has an even minor version number), and the "development" tree (which has an odd minor).
When kernel 2.2n.0 (n being a non-negative integer, in this case, 2) is released, development stops on 2.2n-1.x, and all newly-submitted-and-approved-by-Linus patches are applied to the 2.2n.x tree (because 2.2n-1.x is out of date). While 2.2n.x is still called the stable tree, it becomes the development tree (because some of the newly-patched stuff is untested, and there's no "development" tree to put it in). The "stable" role falls back to 2.2(n-1).0, in this case, the 2.2.x tree.
As far as this goes, it was a stroke of bad luck and hurried timing that this bug wasn't ironed out in 2.4.15-pre9 before it went final (and somewhat of a stroke of stupidity on the parts of the early adopters, myself included).
When 2.2n+1.0 is released, 2.2n continues development, making it the stable tree. Any fixes to bugs found in the 2.2n+1.x tree are back-merged to the current stable tree so that end-users can enjoy a stable, debugged kernel without riding the bleeding edge.
The problem with the Linux kernel numbering system is that the "stable" tree is only stable when there's a "development" tree to test the uncharted waters for it... if there isn't one, it's best to stay back a few revisions unless you like running fsck.
Re:Really... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are wielding a Rant Stick (1d2) (+0,+0) (*slay* kernel developer)(a).
It's not so much that it wasn't stable enough when it was released, but rather that they keep messing with 2.4 instead of making a 2.5. I think maybe Linus had this idea (at the end of 2.3) that the developers could focus on fixing bugs and make 2.4 really great. Unfortunately, they're volunteer developers, so they're working on things that excite them, which means insane stuff like VM rewrites and other "hey, let's try this" changes.
This is why I still use 2.2 and will until there has been a 2.5 for a while (so the developers have a place to try their unstable new ideas) and 2.4 has gone into "bug-fix" mode (like 2.2 is now). It's really annoying, because I want some of the new features of 2.4 (the ones introduced back in 2.3), but can't afford to have the thing crashing on me, and don't want to spend a long time looking for a stable 2.4.X.
Maybe next time, Linus won't wait so long to introduce a development version, or will at least refuse anything but bugfixes in so-called "stable" branches. Still, despite my complaining, I am happy that people have gone through all the trouble to write the Linux kernel, and will try to remember that.
A Workaround (Score:4, Informative)
Re:A Workaround (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A Workaround (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A Workaround (Score:2)
the patch from the kernel list (Score:4, Informative)
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=10
List: linux-kernel
Subject: Re: 2.4.15-pre9 breakage (inode.c)
From: Linus Torvalds
Date: 2001-11-24 5:55:42
[Download message RAW]
On Sat, 24 Nov 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> --- 2.4.15pre9aa1/fs/inode.c.~1~ Thu Nov 22 20:48:23 2001
> +++ 2.4.15pre9aa1/fs/inode.c Sat Nov 24 06:30:20 2001
> @@ -1071,7 +1071,7 @@
> if (inode->i_state != I_CLEAR)
> BUG();
> } else {
> - if (!list_empty(&inode->i_hash) && sb && sb->s_root) {
> + if (!list_empty(&inode->i_hash)) {
> if (!(inode->i_state & (I_DIRTY|I_LOCK))) {
> list_del(&inode->i_list);
> list_add(&inode->i_list, &inode_unused);
I have to say that I like this patch better myself - the added tests are
not sensible, and just removing them seems to be the right thing.
Linus
Re:the patch from the kernel list (Score:2)
I'm not sure where its going (vs where I was).
I'm about to try and apply that patch and see what happens.
The discussion isn't over (Score:4, Informative)
Linus saying he prefers a patch on an initial viewing isn't the end of the situation for now. I'd suggesting waiting a week and revisiting the thread to find out what the final word was.
Re:The discussion isn't over (Score:2)
Re:the patch from the kernel list (Score:2)
I'm using it now.
Strange (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Strange (Score:2, Informative)
Yep... since the affected files are in fs/, not arch/*, it's an architecture-independent problem. Good thing I have the Magic SysRq enabled.
Re:Strange (Score:2, Funny)
Regression suite? What's that? Don't you have to pay for software to get one of them?
But seriously, how much of a regression can be run if pre9 and release are only split by a few hours?
This is why I use FreeBSD (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is why I use FreeBSD (Score:2)
Read my earlier post on the subject. This is not a stable kernel, as there is no development tree to iron out all the bugs. If you ask me, anyone who upgraded to something as bleeding-edge and untested as this (myself included) deserves to get burned a little bit as a warning that you don't really need the newest kernel.
Re:This is why I use FreeBSD (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is why I use FreeBSD (Score:2)
Well, I guess 2.4.9 is fine, as long as you don't care about local root holes [securityfocus.com].
Re:This is why I use FreeBSD (Score:2)
So what?
Bugs aren't that bad. Found (and immediately fixed) bugs mean two things :
- The project is active. No new bug means no new code.
- The project is getting better.
Usually, software with no known bug is dead software. Every piece of software has bugs. So if no bug is reported, it means that nobody uses the software, or that developpers don't care.
Actually, I trust projects that have bugs, but whoose bugs are immediately fixed. I don't trust projects with bugs, that are waiting 6 months to release a new version that fixes 5000 bugs at once.
You are saying that FreeBSD provides "real" bug-free releases. That's false.
For instance, all kernels And when it comes to user tools, for instance, KDE doesn't compile from the port tree on FreeBSD 4.4-release.
And when it comes to FS reliability : I have a FreeBSD 4.3-release box that crashed at the first run (the X server crashed), I had to reboot it by pressing the 'reset' button. It created disk errors that fsck was never able to fix. Doing 'ls' in a directory causes an immediate reboot. I tried every possible fsck option, fsck itself went boo-boo and it wasn't able to fix anything, and the directory can't even be deleted. I have to format the disk and reinstall everything.
Every operating system, every software has bugs. The quality isn't relative to the number of bugs (it's almost a fixed percentage of the project's size) . It's relative to how fast they are fixed.
Re:This is why I use FreeBSD (Score:2)
Comparing a FreeBSD-STABLE release to a Linux kernel release is silly, compare FreeBSD-STABLE to Debian-stable and then we have something to compare. That being the case, I would dare say that if you were to take all of the "releases" of Linux kernels and compare them to all of the releases of Freebsd-stable kernels you would find two things: a) That there are 10x more Linux kernel releases then there are FreeBSD ones in a given time period. b) That the percentage of serious bugs would be about the same. Which is saying something in Linux's favor seeing at how much more development is going on in that Camp (i.e. code being written).
FreeBSD is a great OS, but it is nothing special or uniqe even in the OSS world no matter what its loyal users claim.
Re:This is why I use FreeBSD (Score:2)
FreeBSD is developed and updated via CVS. You can have a new kernel version (whatever that means) every morning if you want it. Yes, both -STABLE and -CURRENT are tracked like this.
How can this be avoided in the future? (Score:3, Insightful)
What I don't get ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Things are working right not wrong: (Score:5, Insightful)
This is one reason why distributions are so important. They do the QA, they make sure packages are stable, they apply the patches. If you want to download and run the latest edition of every package out, including the kernel, then you should expect some bumps in the road, because you are beta testing - even on a "stable" kernel series. Remember: release early, release often. You will have to do the QA, you will have to apply the patches, you will be burned. Some people like doing this to stay on the bleeding edge, others are a bit more cautious.
If you want stable, solid kernels, that are heavily QA'd wait for packages to come out. Otherwise, post a bug report, and quit whining.
That is a cop-out (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem is that new functionality is being added to the stable branch.
The solution to this type of problem is simple, when a stable kernel is released, an unstable branch should be created immedately. New functionality was being added to the 2.4 branch by developers simply because there is nowhere else to put it.
New functionality should never be added to a stable branch in a piece of software as mission-critical as a kernel, that is what the unstable/development branch is for.
If the kernel maintainers want to accelorate the pace at which new functionality gets into a stable branch then they should increase the frequency with which development branches become stable.
Re:That is a cop-out (Score:2, Informative)
In this case, the real problem was that a bugfix (which is supposed to occur in stable kernels) was faulty and caused another bug.
Re:Things are working right not wrong: (Score:2)
Nothing should change between the last release candidate and the final version, except the version number, and the last release candidate should stay a release candidate until the QA has been done. That's why there are final versions.
Re:Things are working right not wrong: (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I do "roll-my-own" and maintain a Linux distribution.I was not burned by this, because like other people "rolling their own/maintaining a distro" I do keep track of LKM posts.
Anyone else doing this type of work, will hopefully learn from this - and NOT install the latest kernel the day after it's out. This type of thing has happened in EVERY series of stable kernels I can remember. And it will happen again.
Re:Things are working right not wrong: (Score:2)
Point #1: We have had a "bloody problem" with something that was declared stable. If it's declared stable then it should not have a bunch of new bells and whistles put in it to fail. New bells and whistles should be put in the next point release.
Point #2: If you rush out and get the "latest thing" and "roll-your-own" then you need to expect running into instability even in software declared stable.
I understand that Linus is used to working on development kernels. As such, he is used to working on stuff that isn't necessarily stable yet. Linus has been updating the "stable" tree up to and including 2.4.15 - I consider such kernels to be post 2.3.x kernels - with a foot still in the development tree. After all, he (Linus) hadn't yet turned the tree over to official maintainers so some addition tweaking should've been expected. Maybe the 2.4.x kernel went a little too far into the stable kernel revision with major development still going on... should he have waited in releasing 2.4 and kept it as 2.3? It's open to debate. All I know is that I'm using 2.4.14 and I'm damn happy with it.
I'll also put in my vote on the debate of should a stable kernel get new major changes in systems. My vote is NO - it should only get tested bug-fixes for existing functionality - no matter who does the patching and maintaining. It only good engineering practice... isn't that what we're all about?
Re:Things are working right not wrong: (Score:2)
But you're right, it's a Good Idea to stay about a week or two behind the Leading Bleeding Edge... and that's true for ANYTHING, Microsoft, Linux Kernel, Cisco, or even cars.... remember how the first few years of the Taurus were real lemons? <shrug> Every once in a while this happens. It doesn't bother me. Bugs happen. They also get fixed. A lot faster than You-Know-Who...
--
Be sure you're right. Then go ahead.
-- Davy Crockett
See? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:See? (Score:2)
I think you missed his point a bit. (Score:4, Insightful)
The Open Source (or more correctly, bazaar or distributed) development model also distributes responsibility. If the possibility of losing your data is something you can't afford then you simply shouldn't be sitting on the cutting edge of kernel development.
Re:I think you missed his point a bit. (Score:2)
Re: See? (Score:2)
Re:Wait a second... (Score:2)
Re:You are right. (Score:2)
2.4.15-greased-turkey-donteat (Score:2, Funny)
irony (Score:4, Funny)
> So who else is downloading 2.5 (Score:5, Funny)
> by Chuck Chunder on Friday November 23, @02:23AM
>
> so they can be cool and trendy and be on the development tree while it's still stable?
>
> The Great Chunder Page [tig.com.au] - Alcohol Induced Fun!
If you didn't think it was funny before, admit it -- it's pretty damn funny now.
hooray for 56k (Score:2, Troll)
regression tests? (Score:4, Redundant)
Big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why production implentations of software go through testing before deployment when at all possible. If you are running Cisco IOS that is say less then a month old you are taking a risk that there will be a serious bug that will hurt you. The same holds true for Linux kernels or any other peice of software. The more complicated the software the harder it is to keep serious bugs from slipping through the cracks, It is _AMAZING_ that Linux has a few major issues as it does.
Here is an exercise for you all: Go to www.microsoft.com go to their support section and read through all of the changelogs (they are hard to find) for all of the hot fixes, service packs and general software updates and you will see what I mean (And yes you will find file system corruption there too).
Re:Big deal. (Score:2)
I don't think it's 'high standards' to expect your filesystem to stay intact after unmounting it. I don't care how new the kernel is, it's just the sort of thing people expect.
Admittedly, important servers shouldn't be upgraded to the latest new kernel, but we should have clearly defined branches of 'stable' and 'testing'. 2.2.x is monstrously old, but still being updated, supposedly. So is 2.4.x, and now we hav 2.5.x to worry about too? Which is stable? Which is unstable?
Debian can divide thousands of packages into these categories, why can't the kernel developers divide their kernel into them and make it obvious? I used to trust 2..x releases, because I was told they weren't devel. I didn't know that !devel didn't mean !going to corrupt your drive.
--Dan
Re:Big deal. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now you can sit there and say "If Linus would of waited _blank_ period of time someone would of caught the problem before the release and this wouldn't of happend. You could also says that if Linus would just release -pre kernels and only release -stable kernels once a year we would have a REALLY stable kernel... the problem is thats not how the release early/release often model of development works. If you want that model use Microsoft we all know how stable their software is.
If you want serious QA use redhat.. they do serious QA.. If you are running 0day software you get burned.. wether its the latest linux kernel, the latest microsoft service pack or the latest Cisco IOS.
Question: what is your example of software that is released "AFTER it's been tested". I can't wait to go read through the change logs and find some bugs that should of been caught by this software superior QA.
Re:Big deal. (Score:2)
> It's odd, you know. I'm used to software being
> released AFTER it's been tested, not before. In
> fact, in my experience, that's been the case.
Sentry21... you ARE the tester. This is Open-Software remember? The users report back to the maintainer their problems - those problems then receive attention in the form of patches or new versions etc... etc... etc...
If you don't want to be part of the testing process then hang back a few kernel revisions and choose one that didn't have an major issues. Such is what the Distribution maintainers do.
Re:Big deal. (Score:2)
It's not "_AMAZING_" that Linux has as few bugs as it does, when you consider that is one of the major good points about OSS. Add to that fact that many many users are able to actually look at the source code when they do find a bug and fix it themselves, or at least point out where they think the problem is, and it's not all that crazy to believe that there aren't very many bugs. It's still a badge, yes, absolutely, but I don't think it's "_AMAZING_" that is the case.
What amazes me is how quickly everyone and their brother post disperaging remarks here on
Re:Please spare us (Score:2)
Re:Please spare us (Score:2, Interesting)
Windows 2000
Take this post as a challenge. Reply with a link that shows that there is/was a bug in Windows 2000 that caused the loss of a ENTIRE FILE SYSTEM ala Linux or Apples iTunes.
ridiculous comparison (Score:2)
Take this post as a challenge. Reply with a link that shows that there is/was a bug in Redhat Linux 7 that caused the loss of an ENTIRE FILE SYSTEM.
The point (which I'm sure you'll miss, but anyway) is that linux-2.4.15.tar.gz is not an operating system. Anyone with the knowhow to download, compile, and install 2.4.15 from source had better be able to run fsck when something like this happens.
Furthermore you way overstate the case when you assert this causes lost file systems. The vast majority of 2.4.15 corruption cases can be repaired with a fsck.
Personally, I consider the code red II worm to be a far greater threat to my data than linux-2.4.15.tar.gz.
Re:Please spare us (Score:4, Informative)
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/article
Re:Big deal. (Score:2)
QA/Release cycles/et al (Score:2, Insightful)
and 'Are there any projects to try and QA the kernel releases?' Both of these miss the point. While we do need more people running the tests which do exist on the -pre releases, it comes down to Linus having an itchy trigger finger, so to speak. 2.4.15 in it's final form did exist for a little while, but it wasn't long enough for anyone to go and give it a good test. There's often been requests for Linus to wait a few days from the last -pre to -final so other arches and sync up (2.4.15 only compiles on x86/sparc64/arm and alpha). If this was released on monday, none of this would happen.
Need Linux regression testing! (Score:2)
Really - we need to make scripts that test right about every critical aspect of a kernel. That would be file systems, VM, IPC, SMP, hardware drivers, SCSI, IDE, ethernet, token ring and more.
Has anybody made such scripts? One thing is a broken, obscure driver, another thing is bugs that break everybody - like VM and now unmount.
GAH!!!! (Score:2)
Back to 2.2.19 now to recompile 2.4.14...
2.4 seems to have had some serious problems (Score:2, Insightful)
<pseudo-rant>
maybe there's a good side to your ISP going out of business and qwest dsl fscking you over changing your isp, making it harder to update your kernel 8)
</pseudo-rant>
but ultimately, i can't see its all that big of a deal. all you have to do is take a couple of weeks to get to the newest kernel. wait till its been out a fortnight, and you're golden
Re:Alan Cox (Score:4, Interesting)
September 29th - Much kernel patching going on. The -ac kernel tree seems to be turning into the stable tree as Linus merges odder, weirder and more alarming things. I just hope he knows what he is doing.
---
Sounds like confidence to me
"QA" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:quality assurance (Score:2, Insightful)
I have a response to those who have said that the open source QA process is to release early and let early adopters suffer the consequences. Are you sure? Are you saying this is good example of open source development? Are you saying this is the exemplar of the open source development process? This is a data loss bug.
In the open source development process, it's not a problem if the new release of Mozilla has a small problem with frames in XHTML, or if the new Linux kernel breaks support for USB joysticks. These are problems that can be fixed.
Some bugs are so serious, however, that they deserve extra attention. These are the "showstoppers." In every kernel release, Linux says something about not finding any showstoppers. That is, there are no data loss bugs or other serious bugs that he knows of. He wouldn't release it if he thought it had such a serious problem.
All I am saying is have a process that can perform rudimentary checks on the kernel to pick up any showstoppers. This process would take a few hours or at most a day. It would prevent situations like this, where the Linux community opens itself up for attack by all the brainwashed Microsoft zealots. Is this really flamebait?
Re:quality assurance (Score:2, Interesting)
message but it's too late now.
I would point out that this bug does not turn up readily.
This bug allows a system to boot up normally, run fine, and then when you
reboot (and only when you reboot) some files are missing if (and only
if) their buffers were dirty when you rebooted.
This is NOT easy to catch. The average Linux system has upwards of 50,000
files. A few disappearing is not easy to notice. In addition, buffers
tend to get flushed pretty well during the shutdown process, so it
wouldn't show up too often either (I avoided on accident it due to a
peculiar RAID shutdown script I have that sync's and sleep's for a bit).
For the M$ zealots out there be careful to practice what you preach. One
of the core arguements of the Slaves of the Empire is that the Linux
zealots bash M$ but can't take criticism themselves. If you'll check your
precious windowsupdate.microsoft.com on a fresh Win98 install, you'll find
the IDE Hard Drive Cache Update. For the uninitiated, this patch fixes a
problem where Windows doesn't write all of the data to disk on
shutdown. Ironically, this tended to completely hose Win98 systems
beyond fixing by Scandisk (usually registry damage).
So, Win98 and Linux have similar problems. In a week, the Linux bug will
be history, but the M$ one is still being minted on CD and requires an
Internet download (because it's a "minor problem", the fix is to "wait
before shut down so the data is written"). I don't remember too much
babbling on Slashdot about that bug and it's been there for YEARS.
Gosh, I guess I should write this off as being dribble by "Linux
Bashers".
Oh, and to completely trash my karma, I've had disk corruption in a stable
FreeBSD due to a bug in FreeBSD code, so don't get too high on your own
superiority yet. You've got older code--sometimes it's a strength,
sometimes it's a weakness. Like the FreeBSD development process isn't
ever rocky.
Re:Don't throw stones in Glass Houses (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Don't throw stones in Glass Houses (Score:2)
And odder still I do remember that every time that I have heard of a "major" flaw it was fixed very quickly, and then took a few days to go under the standard regression tests on all platforms and machines before it was publically released. If you were affected by one of these problems, you could get the "unsupported" patch as soon as it was developed, but before they could complete testing.
You can't do complete testing of a patch in 24-48 hours and release it as public with support.
Also, when a "serious" problem does come out, the relevant MS developers are told to work 18 hours a day 7 days a week until it's solved.
It's one thing to say "hey, it looks like here's the problem, here we just corrected it and compiled it, that should do", and another completely to have performed all of the tests required to make sure that one small "fix" didn't corrupt something on some obscure hardware configuration that other major clients are using.
You're all so quick to cut down Microsoft and defend Linux when worse problems happen. You'll also have to explain to me how this is not completely hypocritical, because the logic on that one eludes me as well.
Re:Don't throw stones in Glass Houses (Score:2)
Seriously, the professional astroturfers on this site love to whinge about how the slashdot sysops are anti-ms, but hey; they admit it don't they?
Compare that to MS owned news and the fact it NEVER critisizes windows, but pretends to be unbiased (One would even believe it if one didn't know better)
At the end of the day , it reminds me of a comment by Aust media theorist John Hartley that "Propaganda is more honest than news, because at least it admits it's bias".
Think about it.
Re:Don't throw stones in Glass Houses (Score:2)
download the source, read teh kernel-howto, go through the menu (or x config), make bzImage, etc
then repeat as necessary to get it to boot properly (ide root drive, load ide driver as module is always a good combo
Patch download here (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Patch download here (Score:2)
patch -p1 -l virofix
--
GCP
Re:Quality testing (Score:2)
Similar response times. I'd classify this issue way worse ESPECIALLY since it should have gone through standard testing.
Re:Ok so Apple isn't the only one to screw up (Score:3)
NT ok, Win2k fixes NTFS errors pretty well. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Bad start (Score:2, Informative)
Nope. 2.4.15 was released by Linus
al
Re:Bad start (Score:2)
Nope. 2.4.15 was released by Linus
True, but it's still a "bad start", in the sense of "unpleasant", for the "brasilian guy", because his very first task involves the urgent need for a quick release of a bug-fixed 2.4.16...Imagine getting hired as a sysadmin and the very first morning you walk into the office 100 or so computers belonging to senior management all start propagating MS VB viruses amongst themselves and the rest of the system, crashing machines, emailing sensitive data to random people outside of the company, slowing network traffic to a crawl, etc. etc.....
Talk about "trial by fire"....