Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Linux Software

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 mirror or! Tidbit: 'Current bandwidth utilization 131.72 Mbit/s '." See the Changelog for new stuff.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Kernel 2.4.21 Released

Comments Filter:
  • unstable 2.5 (Score:1, Insightful)

    by jmays ( 450770 ) * on Friday June 13, 2003 @01:26PM (#6192385)
    2.5 has a release today as well. 2.5.70 []
  • Re:Admin Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Malc ( 1751 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @01:29PM (#6192446)
    Why are you running a release candidate on a production server?

    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)

    by DreadSpoon ( 653424 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @01:32PM (#6192483) Journal
    Hoping RH pushes updated kernels for RH9. Piss-poor IDE disk performance is my one big gripe with my Linux boxen at the moment; whole machine feels like shit when something heavy is running the disk in the background. :(
  • by narfbot ( 515956 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @01:34PM (#6192517)
    cd /usr/src/linux
    bzcat /blah/patch-2.4.21.bz2|patch -p1
    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.
  • by hendridm ( 302246 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @01:35PM (#6192528) Homepage

    > 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)

    by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @01:36PM (#6192544)
    > people should be only downloading the patch anyway

    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. :)
  • by TrollBridge ( 550878 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @01:42PM (#6192633) Homepage Journal
    The parent post is a perfect example of what Linux tech support usually looks like.

    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.

  • by ichimunki ( 194887 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @01:53PM (#6192749)
    Sounded more like laziness than cluelessness/newbie-ism to me. If the person was smart enough to get a release candidate kernel onto his server, he's either smart enough to figure out if he wants/needs to update to the actual release or he's using a distro and should ask them for an updated package that is known to work with their other packages.
  • by QuMa ( 19440 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @01:57PM (#6192785)
    1. HTTP has no more overhead than FTP, and in most cases less.
    2. So get a better browser (opera comes to mind) or don't use your browser. Just because it's http doesn't mean you have to use your browser.
    3. which they can do anyway
  • by arjun ( 33278 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @02:09PM (#6192902) Homepage
    Instead of whining here, why don't you test the rcX candidates and report your findings on lkml, like the rest of us. You have better chances of getting things fixed.
  • by bogie ( 31020 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @02:13PM (#6192934) Journal
    "Ssssh, dont tell anybody, it might burst there bubble, and distract them from sliming other OSes that solved this junk years ago"

    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)

    by Metasquares ( 555685 ) <slashdot@metasquared. c o m> on Friday June 13, 2003 @02:28PM (#6193121) Homepage
    Perhaps if SCO would actually reveal the code to the public, a version could be made that is clean of "SCO's" code. Of course, they might just get laughed at if they reveal the code.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13, 2003 @02:33PM (#6193191)
    I had some difficulty parsing your post, but anyway: SCSI-burners can't go to PIO mode because PIO (programmed input output) is an IDE transfer mode like DMA.

    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.

  • by Minna Kirai ( 624281 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @02:43PM (#6193331)
    Why would anyone download multiple Debian CDs before installing? That just doesn't make sense. The most you should download is a 150 meg bootable CDROM image [], then let the rest of the packages you want come over HTTP when you choose to install them.

    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 [] in Debian, six of them are only desirable for hardcore software developers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13, 2003 @03:14PM (#6193689)
    The grandparent post is more of an example of the condescending attitude that seems to be encouraged by this website.

    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.

  • by Minna Kirai ( 624281 ) on Friday June 13, 2003 @03:36PM (#6193947)
    Yes, I have heard of the great "apt-get" and will definitely exercise it a bit.

    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 [] on a Red Hat system, I had to download that RPM. Then go to install it, and find out I needed multiple other RPMs [] first, which need even more RPMs [] 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.

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.