Linux 2.5.1 is out

[neuralfx]

ya its just a development kernel, just found it, thought i'd pass the information along ..
http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0112.2/0112.html
-neural

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

i'm not the type of person to keep up to date w/ kernel releases very much...

how long are they gonna go w/ the 2.4.xx kernel before 2.6?

just wonderin

 

[Nothinman]

2.4 will be continued even after 2.6, just like someone is still maintaining 2.0 and 2.2.

Noone knows how long 2.5 will last before 2.6 is crowned, but with all the major changes going into 2.5 I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[BlackOmen]

If one was going to run one of the 2.5 development kernels, this would probably be a good time before the devel brandh deviates from the stable branch. For the normal folk (those not wanting to be on the bleeding edge), it would be a good idea to stick with 2.4.16 and further stable kernels.

 

[Nothinman]

2.5 has already broken from the 2.4 patch, mempools are being implemented and many (~half are estimated) of the block device drivers will not work because of many bio changes.

Stay away from 2.5.anything unless you want to be a kernel hacker

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

wow thats strange that they continue developing the older kernels...

i'm on 2.4.16 and considering my n00b status i think i'll stick w/ the stable kernels

 

[n0cmonkey]

There is no reason to use 2.5 unless you are trying to fix something.

 

[UnixFreak]

<< There is no reason to use 2.5 unless you are trying to fix something. >>



Yeah, pretty much. I think its funny when I see these guys go out, and download and compile the new kernel every time it comes out, every little release, and essentially waste their time. Usually, I will just use the kernel that came with the distro, and compile a good image of that, and I'm good, unless I see something I have to have, or something is really wrong with that one, but thats only happened a few times in the last few years, with me.

 

[Armitage]

<< wow thats strange that they continue developing the older kernels... >>



Why is that strange? I think its a great feature of Linux.
After all, the latest "stable" kernel often isn't. Lots of people wisely stuck with the 2.2 series kernels while 2.4 worked through its initial growing pains (roughly 2.4.0 -> 2.4.12 :Q)

I have machines running 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 series kernels:

2.0: freesco
2.2: An older box running RH 6.2. It's rock-solid, and it doesn't need anything in the new kernels.
2.4: Everything else. In particular, I needed the > 2GB file support for some stuff.

The fact that I can potentially expect bug fixes for all of these systems is fantastic, and I don't have to mess around with moving up a major revision (which can be fairly painful)

 

[n0cmonkey]

<<

<< There is no reason to use 2.5 unless you are trying to fix something. >>

Yeah, pretty much. I think its funny when I see these guys go out, and download and compile the new kernel every time it comes out, every little release, and essentially waste their time. Usually, I will just use the kernel that came with the distro, and compile a good image of that, and I'm good, unless I see something I have to have, or something is really wrong with that one, but thats only happened a few times in the last few years, with me. >>



I usually upgrade when a new kernel comes out, but I stick to the stable kernels. I also give it a couple of days incase a BIG bug slipped through (ok, to let the mirrors traffic die down, but the other excuse sounds better). 2.2 is a little old for me at this point, plus I want the better smp of the 2.4 kernel, Ive just been too lazy to upgrade...