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This discussion has been archived.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
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Someday somebody has got to decide whether the typewriter is the machine, or the person who operates it.
I'm in the dark ages... (Score:4, Funny)
MODS ON CRACK? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:I'm in the dark ages... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm in the dark ages... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm in the dark ages... (Score:2)
apt-get install kernel-image-2.4.22
Not that hard. I guess we could all switch to RedHat though. Then we could be comfortable in the knowledge that the version string is more recent by default, even though most of the code is from an archaic version. Not that you'd know what is in there with out manually checking, since their kernel release notes, um, shall we say, leave some to be desired.
Re:I'm in the dark ages... (Score:3, Informative)
cp
then add this to
image=/boot/vmlinuz.backup
label=backup
read-only
optional
Re:I'm in the dark ages... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm in the dark ages... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:don't feel so bad, fellow dark ages inhabitant. (Score:2)
I pulled 2.4.22 out of Debian unstable. Of course, it isn't (unstable).
Re:don't feel so bad, fellow dark ages inhabitant. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:don't feel so bad, fellow dark ages inhabitant. (Score:2)
I prefer to just upgrade my kernels by hand rather than wait for the distro to do it for me.
Any reason to update? (Score:1)
Re:Any reason to update? (Score:1)
What sort of geek are you, man?
Re:Any reason to update? (Score:2)
I usually grep for 'ppc' 'm68k' 'torvalds' 'cox' 'morton' 'ATA' 'radeon' and a few other things, that gives me a good enough grip on what's in the new releases.
Re:Any reason to update? (Score:2)
Yes. But it won't share. And, in fact, it will act all shocked and smug that you haven't read one of THE important literary works in recent times.
MIrrors not updated yet! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:MIrrors not updated yet! (Score:2)
Re:MIrrors not updated yet! (Score:2)
Woohoo!! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Woohoo!! (Score:3, Informative)
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!
how is work done simultaneously (Score:1, Redundant)
Re:how is work done simultaneously (Score:2, Insightful)
As there needs to be both progress, and stable platforms to work with, this multiple-tier system seems just about right to me.
Re:how is work done simultaneously (Score:2)
Re:how is work done simultaneously (Score:2)
No cryptoloop? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re:No cryptoloop? (Score:2)
Re:No cryptoloop? (Score:2)
Re:No cryptoloop? (Score:2)
With full acceleration?
If so, then that's great!
Re:No cryptoloop? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No cryptoloop? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:No cryptoloop? (Score:2, Informative)
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
-Klaus
Re:No cryptoloop? (Score:2)
I was seriously considering doing it myself, but I'm too lazy^H^H^H^Hbusy to do that.
Do We Really Need This??!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
"DRM Support for Xfree?" parse error... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:"DRM Support for Xfree?" parse error... (Score:4, Informative)
TWW
Re:"DRM Support for Xfree?" parse error... (Score:2)
It would make my day if XFree86's Direct Rendering Manager was renamed to another acronym. Perhaps DREM?
With all the political debate these days about Digital Restrictions/Rights Management, we very much need another acronym that is not so overloaded!
Intel working on x86-64? (Score:3, Interesting)
len.brown:intel.com:
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.
Re:Intel working on x86-64? (Score:2)
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 [rpmfind.net].
Re:Intel working on x86-64? (Score:2)
Re:Intel working on x86-64? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Why aren't pre-emptive and low-latency merged? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Why aren't pre-emptive and low-latency merged? (Score:2, Informative)
Say you have a bunch of volunteer programmers, will you divide them between 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6? Both the programmers and the vast majority of users will want them working in 2.6. In fact if Linux wasnt so corporate-conscious, there should be no work done
How do you explain the rewritten ACPI then? (Score:2)
Re:Why aren't pre-emptive and low-latency merged? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why aren't pre-emptive and low-latency merged? (Score:2)
Re:Why aren't pre-emptive and low-latency merged? (Score:2)
Re:Why aren't pre-emptive and low-latency merged? (Score:2, Informative)
His name is Marcelo Tosatti, not Mario or Luigi
(/offtopic)
Re:Why aren't pre-emptive and low-latency merged? (Score:2)
Nice, but no cigar: only x86 supported (Score:2)
grsecurity (Score:2)
Linux 2.4.23 Installed and running. (Score:2)
Linux
2.4.23
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.
2.6 was a great improvement for me (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand 2.6.test11 works beautifully. For me, the 2.4 kernel is history.
int i; int k; char *j;
main(){
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;
}
Re:So what??? (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Kernel Release (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Kernel Release (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kernel Release (Score:2)
Re:Kernel Release (Score:5, Insightful)
Why?
I'll agree with you that the kernel version are generally NUMERICALLY "Minor" versions, but the changelogs say different. A ton of stuff usually happens in these "minor" releases which generally turns them into quite "major" releases (though not NUMERICALLY.
Re:Kernel Release (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, give it a rest. If you don't like the choice of a story - DON'T READ IT. If you don't like any of the sotries on Slashdot, DON'T READ IT.
It's like going to a trumpet player's website and complaining about all these annoying trumpet stories.
Or are you seriously suggesting that Slashdot would be improved by posting fewer stories? From all the complaints, it sound's like they're rejecting enough as
Re:Kernel Release (Score:5, Informative)
Any mission critical environments should run a stable version of the kernel.
In this sense, they are more major than the 2.6 beta kernels.
Re:Kernel Release (Score:4, Insightful)
But The general pattern seems to be:
- "2.6 is almost here!"
- "2.4.23 is out!" Remember that tree? It's still there!
- "2.2.25 is out!" complete with people bitching about how much stuff 2.4.x broke (insert VM whine here)
- "2.0.39 is out!" with people posting about how they haven't rebooted their linux box since 1996
...
Pretty soon, we'll be seeing:- "2.7 branch created! Let's have a look at what's to come
..."
- "2.6.1 is out! 2.6.2! 2.6.3!"
- "2.4.24!" It makes my head hurt....
Really, it's no surprise. Each time a new X.Y.0 release is coming, Slashdot shows the same repetitive behavior...If you want kernel news, I suggest you read LKML or LWN. [lwn.net]
The Algorithm (Score:2)
Or anything, really. Let's see:
Re:Is there.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is there.. (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, there was a new release of the 2.2 kernel as early as March of this year.
Re:Is there.. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why you're not in charge of a mission critical production environment. Those who are know that an increase in performance is not worth a decrease in reliability. 2.6.0 is not going to be as stable and reliable as 2.4.23 is, just as 2.4.0 wasn't as stable as 2.2.18.
Re:Is there.. (Score:5, Insightful)
No it's right on the money. Unless you are waiting for some specific feature, a business with mission critical application/services will not upgrade to a newly released OS.
The Apache Software Foundation found this out when they released 2.0. After six month, very little sites were running Apache 2.0. It wasn't because it was bad product, it was simply because 1.3.x worked pefectly for them.
Why upgrade when your site is running perfectly? When our site is down, we have to refund the customers money. That was about $10,000 a day. So is it worth upgrading productions site, when your current site is working perfectly, at a risk of $10,000 a day? I'd wait until 2.6.12+ or so before I'd even think it.
Now 2.6 on a development site ( mirror of production) is another issue. That's where 2.6 starts it life in our company.
Heck, Solaris 10 is about to come out, who's even upgraded to Solaris 8?
Apache 2.0 (Score:2)
Re:Is there.. (Score:2)
Re:Is there.. (Score:5, Informative)
But... just because this release is going much smoother that doesn't mean your critic doesn't have a point. Regardless of how long 2.6 retains backward compatability with some aspects of 2.4's presentation to userland, there are some fairly fundamental things that are going to have to change for a system to be fully 2.6-ized. Devfs is being dropped for udev, swaths of proc are being moved to sysfs, and modules get a whole new userland tool. Now, I can boot 2.6 on my desktop and even run X with those unofficial nvidia module wrappers, but hde's performace is degraded despite hdparm's report of increased functionality and I can't run it on my powerbook without a hack to fix the keyboard. The userland stuff for udev hasn't even been written yet. If you've got anything under /etc that touches /proc you may have to rewrite it. Does your server hardware have the ability to monitor fans and temperatures? If so is that important as a failsafe for your uptime? Better check everything between i2c-foo.ko and whatever sends you mail 'cause sysfs has made it a whole new ballgame. Understand, I'm not saying that this kernel doesn't look born to win. It does. But look at your conf files for devfsd. Unless you've rolled your own distro odds are you've got all sorts of wierd tweaks to support a namespace that's lingered since 2.2. Raise your hands if you can boot your machine without "MKOLDCOMPAT"! (I especially love the "original 'new' devfs names or the really new names".) My point here is simply that 2 years after 2.4.0 made a better way of handling devices official the change is still being absorbed. That's not a bad thing. It just illustrates the conservative, one-step-at-a-time way that the whole system moves forward. Most won't stick a prerelease or even a 2.6.0 kernel on a machine that pays thier rent because they don't want to fix something that isn't broken.
Re:Is there.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope. There is no way we will be moving to 2.6. The boxes we have running 2.4 now will be running 2.4 untill the day they die. I imagine any mission critical environments will be doing the exact same thing as we are.
With new servers you put into production, you may consider 2.6 depending on speed/feature requirements. But existing mission critical machines will never be upgraded.
Think about it, you have a machine and a system that is working. What exactly are you trying to fix? Make it faster? If it was too slow for you, you would have already bought more hardware. So, its not too slow, its been working fine and has been tested. You would have to be mad to upgrade the thing.
Mission critical boxes usually always keep the same kernel version until the day the die.
Re:Is there.. (Score:2)
I know what I'm sticking with...
You have to realize, we've had a few years to work all of the bugs out of 2.4...
There are always nasty bugs that show up in the single digit stages of a kernel.
To tell you the truth, I wouldn't trust 2.6 to a production environment until someone comes out with a server distro based on it...
Re:Is there.. (Score:5, Informative)
As for when 2.6.0 will be out, Linus is turning that over to Andrew Morton, and we really have no idea what his style of stable kernel releases will be like. I'd actually expect to next see a relatively long 2.6.0-rc series before 2.6.0; maybe even a 2.6.0-pre series before that, depending on what he thinks of the seriousness of the remaining "should-fix" and "must-fix" lists and the reported bugs.
Re:Is there.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Is there.. (Score:2)
Re:Is there.. (Score:2)
Re:Is there.. (Score:2)
Re:Is there.. (Score:5, Insightful)
- change in mouse behaviour (speed, access to extra buttons)
- some 3rd party modules not updated (nforce2 nic drivers, vmware)
- I've heard cd burning has issues
- I can updated the 2.4.x kernels without any huge worries that my remote server will blow up and require me to get some co-lo monkey to try to fix it
Re:Is there.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Is there.. (Score:2)
*Fine, well and good
Re:Is there.. (Score:2)
Probably because 2.6 isn't ready or official yet. They'll need, at the very least, an official starting point.
Re:Is there.. (Score:2)
Petr Vandrovec is golden for VMWare stuff, which often shows up at http://knihovny.cvut.cz/ftp/pub/vmware/ [knihovny.cvut.cz]
Larry
Re:Is there.. (Score:2)
Re:Is there.. (Score:2)
but then again if you're machines are running sweet and there's no security holes in the earlier kernel then there's not much reason to upgrade unless you want to upgrade just for fun.
same goes for going to 2.6, though i don't think many people would regard the 2.6.0 release as proven stable enough for a production system on the release day either.
if it works(your
Re:Is there.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you miss the early 2.4.x kernels? The 2.4 kernel was nicknamed "the kernel of pain" for a reason. The VM madness was so horrid where I work -- it could be relied upon to clobber MySQL every time the load got moderately high -- that we immediately rolled back to whatever the latest 2.2.x kernel was at the time.
The fact that Linux is the product of an open development process certainly improves code quality, but it doesn't mean that all of the major bugs have been worked out before it's been subjected to the full power of real world production use.
Re:Is there.. (Score:3, Informative)
Myself I don't think I'll be upgrading immediately to 2.6. I know the developers feel conf
Re:Is there.. (Score:5, Interesting)
You see that third number in the release? 2.4.x? It keeps going up, and the main reason for it going up is to fix bugs.
When the speed of increment slows, I can feel confident there are less bugs! Other people have suffered them, found them, and fixed them! Call me a freeloader...
Actually I have reported bugs in kernels before and got them fixed. But I don't find kernel bugs on production machines, I find them on test boxes.
Of course, if your don't care too much about stability on your box, that's fine, do what you want. But in that case, what is the point of your post?
I'm waiting for 2.6.xx (Score:3, Insightful)
I for one don't really see anything good for _ME_ in 2.6, the parts of the kernel I use are actually in better repair under 2.4 (framebuffer and OSS, mostly). I've tried recent 2.6-test builds, and the small performance gains
Re:Is there.. (Score:5, Informative)
- 0.8% using 2.0
- 8.9% running 2.2
- 86.5% running 2.4
- 3.5% running 2.6.
There's every reason to believe many people will continue running 2.4 for a LONG time still.(Statistics based on 4503 machines that choose to send in updates. The method is obviously biased.You have been warned.)
Re:Is there.. (Score:2)
Re:Is there.. (Score:2)
Re:Dumb noob Linux question (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, the way the Linux kernel works, it's x.y.z. For the stable version, x is currently 2, y is 4 and z is 23 (I guess). If y is an odd number, it's "development", and may be unstable, might not compile and should interest only programmers. If y is an even number, it's production and should work. So 2.5 was there, but the general public probably wasn't really interested in it. Of course, now they have -preX's at the end, so that's another paragraph to the rules, one which I'm not really familiar with.
Re:Dumb noob Linux question (Score:2, Informative)
They still maintain older kernels such as 2.2 and 2.4 because some servers, such as the ones I run can not afford to take our chances with a brand new series kernel which might still have bugs lingering, and where there might be compatability issues, so we still ne
Re:Dumb noob Linux question (Score:2)
Re:Decimal literals in the code? (Score:4, Insightful)
But, if you're so hell bent on your idea, why stop there? Run all the code through gcc and have it generate assembly output. Then remove all the
Humans like things they can understand, computers like things computers can understand. Since it is humans developing the software, it is the compilers job to understand how to translate (and the people who write the compilers.)
Aironet updates are in Changelog (Score:2)
If I remember, I will post my results it here....
=========
Re:The ChangeLog is a long one (Score:2)
Re:Kernel release. (Score:3, Informative)
The latest 2.2 kernel is 2.2.25. It was released this march, years after the 2.4 kernel was released.
I don't see any reason to assume the same won't be true with the 2.4 series.
At my work, we are still running 2.2 systems. 2.4 kernels in our production system are a pretty recent occurance. I don't see us running 2.6 for quite a while, so it would be nice if 2.4 continue to run on new hardware as it comes out
Re:Kernel release. (Score:2)
Re:The Pentaverate (Score:2)
Son: "So, who's in this 'Pentaverate'?"
Father: "The queen. The Vatican. The Getty's. The Rothschilds. AND Colonel Sanders before he went t*ts up! Oh, I hated the Colonel with his wee beady eye and that smug look on