Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Linux Software

Kernel 2.4.23 Released 236

MikeCapone writes "As if we didn't already have enough articles about Linux kernel releases, Marcelo Tosatti has released the final 2.4.23 Linux kernel. Check out the changelog at Kerneltrap."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kernel 2.4.23 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by eurleif ( 613257 ) on Friday November 28, 2003 @07:55PM (#7584711)
    I'm still using 2.4.18!
  • With this long changelog, I don't know what's important and what is not. Is there any reason to update from 2.4.22?
  • by Alan ( 347 ) <<gro.seifu> <ta> <xeretcra>> on Friday November 28, 2003 @08:03PM (#7584753) Homepage and aren't updated yet, so I guess we're free to slashdot the main server back to the stone age? :)
  • Woohoo!! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Howard Beale ( 92386 ) on Friday November 28, 2003 @08:11PM (#7584801)
    Hopefully, this fixes some nasty kernel oopses that occur when using the pl2303 usb-serial driver. I've had a lot of trouble with this when using my Deluo GPS.

    • Re:Woohoo!! (Score:3, Informative)

      by grotgrot ( 451123 )
      How about tales of XP crashing? If you plug in a GPS outputting its location on the serial interface (NMEA), via a real serial cable or a USB to serial connection, then XP crashes (blue screen, reboot etc).

      It took me a while to figure out the problem. I finally worked out that it thinks the data stream is a serial mouse and dutifully interprets it that way for a few seconds before bringing down the whole machine!
  • on the 2.4 and 2.6 releases? with 2.6 so close to release ... is there much point to having a 2.4+x release out? are the changes made to the new 2.4 already in the 2.6, or is it still newer stuff which hasnt been put into 2.6?
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Some people like doing fast development and implementing new features. Others like fine-tuning, perfecting what has gone before.

      As there needs to be both progress, and stable platforms to work with, this multiple-tier system seems just about right to me.
  • No cryptoloop? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Friday November 28, 2003 @08:17PM (#7584829) Homepage Journal
    Still no cryptoloop. CryptoAPI is in there. but the darn cryptoloop driver, which makes cryptoAPI actually useful isn't in there yet.

    What a waste, all my USB keys and compact flash are encrypted. I guess I'll just see if OpenBSD supports my videocard yet. *sigh*
    • Re:No cryptoloop? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tyler Eaves ( 344284 ) on Friday November 28, 2003 @08:30PM (#7584892)
      Is your graphics card a 9x00 Radeon by any chance? If so, you're in luck, sorta. You'll need to pull XFree from CVS and build it by hand (no big deal), and then use the "radeon" driver. That supports all currently released radeon cards. I'm running a 9600 in FreeBSD with zero problems.
      • What, with proper (open, if it's in X) 3D support? I'm quite impressed, maybe it's approaching time to ditch my nVidia after all.
      • That supports all currently released radeon cards.

        With full acceleration?

        If so, then that's great!

        • Re:No cryptoloop? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Tyler Eaves ( 344284 )
          No, 2D only. Still, that suits my needs. What few GL apps I need once in a blew moon aren't too horrible with Mesa. I don't use this machine for games at all, so it works for me, but it's not really a gaming solution. Of course, one could question wether ANY *nix is much of a gaming platform. I'd rather play on a console hooked to my big screen anyways...
          • Re:No cryptoloop? (Score:3, Insightful)

            by OrangeTide ( 124937 )
            2D only.. so why do you have a radeon again? You should've saved yourself the money and bought a Matrox G450 or something for $30. It's got better/faster 2D accelleration I hear anyways. And it consumes a lot less power than Radeon or GeForce.

            But really. I need proper GLX support since I like to goof around with that stuff. And I refuse to use windows, because I don't feel like paying for it and I have ethical problems with stealing windows. :)

    • Re:No cryptoloop? (Score:2, Informative)

      by damiam ( 409504 )
      You could just apply the patch yourself.
    • Re:No cryptoloop? (Score:2, Informative)

      by terzyva ( 154478 )
      You need to apply the cryptoloop-jari [] patch on top of the 2.4.23 kernel.

      Some people reported that you need to use updated userspace tools and the "hashalot" tool as well, but for me applying the patch above did the trick.

      I agree that it's disappointing that the cryptoloop support is only partially integrated, since the correct instructions on how to get it working are hidden among a lot of no-longer-accurate descriptions :-(

      • Ahh! This is perfect. When I was looking at all I could find was stuff for 2.4.19. Thanks. :)

        I was seriously considering doing it myself, but I'm too lazy^H^H^H^Hbusy to do that.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28, 2003 @08:24PM (#7584862)

    I don't want to sound like a troll, but does anybody else this comment is wholly inappropriate to be included in the text??

    If I had written that as a post, I'd get tossed into -1, Flamebait before you know it. Yet the editors are seemingly bigger flamebaiters and trolls than the readers.

    Seriously, if michael has such a problem with Debian, write a comment, and face the moderation and the replies. If he can't do that, then don't bother creating shit like that.

  • From KernelTrap's summary...

    Among the many fixes and updates, changes include a significant update to the VM including the removal of the OOM killer [story], the addition of "laptop mode" to help increase battery life [story], and DRM support for Xfree86 v4.3.0+.

    DRM support? WTF? For XFree? uh? Maybe they mean DRI... maybe DRM is some other acronym. grep -i drm on the changelog didn't clear things up at all. Anyone care to enlighten me?
  • by Graelin ( 309958 ) on Friday November 28, 2003 @10:40PM (#7585422)
    Anyone else find it interesting that Intel is working on x86-64 code? Or am I reading too much into this...
    o [ACPI] fix x86_64 build errors
    o [ACPI] fix x86_64 !CONFIG_ACPI build
    o 2.4.23 build x86_64 build fixes
    o x86_64 build fix from previous cset
    o [ACPI] sync some i386 ACPI build fixes into x86_64 to fix !CONFIG_ACPI build

    (Note some non-x86-64 changes omited from excerpt)

    Wishful thinking probably.
    • "Anyone else find it interesting that Intel is working on x86-64 code?"

      Maybe I'm not understanding what you're asking, but I do know that there is at least a beta (or should I say "preview") version of RedHat available that works on Intel's 64-bit CPU's codenamed "GinGin64". You can see the FTP area here [].
    • last i'd read, intel will be releasing a chip with the amd64 extensions (i think that'll happen with prescott), so even if it helps amd, it would still be in their best interest to make 2.6 work well with x86-64
    • by Jack Hughes ( 5351 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @03:41AM (#7586290)
      Len Brown is the ACPI System Maintainer. He receives many patches from many people. Puts them together, reviews them and incorporates them in his ACPI oriented kernel. They are then tested by the ACPI interested people. When Len is happy, features that are suitable for 2.4 (e.g. maintenances is preferred over completely rewrite etc). are sent to the 2.4 kernel maintainer - Marcelo Tossati.

      I suspect it is simply an inaccurancy in Marcelo's logging system - all the ACPI changes have been ascribed to Len Brown - rather than the people who sent them to him.
  • by Quietti ( 257725 ) on Friday November 28, 2003 @11:24PM (#7585550) Journal
    Noticing that these two famous patches are already merged into kernel 2.6 and have received plenty of praises when they were first introduced to the 2.4 crowd before, I really wonder what's keeping Mario from merging them into 2.4 as well.

    If he merged them, I would no longer have to fight my way around these two to manage to squeeze GrSecurity and FreeSwan on top, since the GrSecurity and FreeSwan crowd would have already done the work of making their patches compatible with a pre-emptive and low-latency enabled vanilla upstream source. For some reason, beleive I would not be the only one to cheer up if this happened.

    Mario? Would you happen to be reading this thread and willing to explain your position in regards to this?

  • Ah well, to bad the all-new-and-shiny grsecurity for 2.4.23 isn't out yet.
  • [codifex@unknown codifex]$ uname; uname -r

    Compile and install went pretty smooth except for the es1371 garbage... After I switched input core to compiled in instead of module that is... heh.

    Recompiled my Vortex sound - no prob.
    Downloaded latest NVidia driver - nice automatic configurator and installer - Bravo NVidia!

    Good to go in record time. Linux just keeps getting better and better. Now to beat on it.
  • by gvc ( 167165 ) on Saturday November 29, 2003 @01:36PM (#7587965)
    I have about 15 dual-processor machines with 1-2 GB that didn't work at all well with 2.4.x kernel. The memory management was simply crap. Forking a couple of copies of the program below consistently put the system into a permanent comatose state. (Search for 'kswapd problems' for discussion and ineffective patches.)

    On the other hand 2.6.test11 works beautifully. For me, the 2.4 kernel is history.

    int i; int k; char *j;

    for (i=1;i2000000000;i*=2) {
    printf("%d\n",i); fflush(stdout);
    j = (char *)malloc(i);
    printf("-- %d\n",j); fflush(stdout);
    if (j == NULL) break;
    for (k=0;ki;k++) j[k] = 1;
    return 0;

Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons.