Linus Torvalds has released Linux 2.6.24. "The release is out there (both git trees and as tarballs/patches), and for the next week many kernel developers will be at (or flying into/out of) LCA in Melbourne, so let's hope it's a good one. Nothing earth-shattering happened since -rc8, although the new set of ACPI blacklist entries and some network driver updates makes the diffstat show that there was more than the random sprinkling of one-liners all over the tree. But most of it really is one-liners, and mostly not very exciting ones at that."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-12-18
Well, you are right about that vanilla kernels aren't in the distro releases, but if you got a rather "lowtech"(please do not missunderstand what I mean here) distro like Slackware, there is not much problems running a vanilla kernel. I guess you can do that on a "hightech" distro like suse/fedora/Xbuntu, but with a little more hassle than say Slackware...
If this was a 2.6.23.x relaes I could understand that you are upset because it got attention, but this is a little bigger release, so I for one think that it is nice to hear about it...
Member since:2006-02-06
Actually Slackware comes with an unpatched vanilla kernel and particularly for Slack {and derivatives as long as they also include vanilla kernel, and there are quite a few of these distros} users such an announcement makes sense as this group tends to recompile and use the latest kernel A LOT.
(Not to say Debian etc. users don't, but most other Mandriva, PCLOS etc. users probably do not replace their kernel on a regular basis.)
Anyway, I do not recall constant kernel release announcements as claimed here on OSnews, not even every week.
BarnabyH
OOps, somebody just posted in a similar vein...
Member since:2005-07-24
I probably shouldn't respond to Antik's antics. But... this represents 3.5 months work of a *very* busy project. Have a look at the "short" version of the change log. It's *quite* substantial. 2.6.24 is probably the single most major kernel release in a few years. 2.6.x version releases have never been reported "several times a week" on OSNews. And I happen to be using 2.6.24 in Ubuntu Gutsy (that's a distro) right now. And it's pretty close to vanilla. I imagine the Fedora 9 dev branch is also using it. The final production version of Gutsy can be expected to be based upon this kernel version. Fedora 9 will use either this or 2.6.25 depending upon timing.
So in a nutshell, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. I could see you maybe having a complaint which was at least debatable if you complained about an announcement of, say, 2.6.23.14. But it would be hard to have timed your complaint any more badly than you did.
And for the gods' sake simply ignore stories which don't interest you instead of wasting *everybody's* time whining.
Edited 2008-01-25 19:26 UTC
Member since:2005-07-13
Two-three times a week? I don't think so. I'd care if they release 2.7 or something- just patched patch releases is insignificant noise. I already lost count what release that was- 2.6.26.xxx.yy or something? And you won't see this kernel in your OS of choice for months if ever. Not a single GNU/Linux distribution got "vanilla" Linux kernel on their cd/iso/whatever anyway.
BTW, Linux is not an operating system- it's just a kernel.
WTF are you going on about? This is a version release, not an -rc or a sub-point update release.
This kernel will be in new distro releases, such as openSUSE 11.0, which has already been using the -rc versions in development. The days of every distro rolling their own branch of the kernel tree are long gone, the vast majority use vanilla with whatever they may feel are worthwhile custom patches, but they always standardize on mainline.
So, considering the kernel forms one of the major core components of a linux distribution, and this is OSNews, I'd say a new kernel release is worthy of a mention.
Member since:2006-05-30
Indeed. Most people refuse to call it GNU/Linux because they are lazy. Some of them refuse to call it that because they disagree with Stallman. I happen to be both, but I still call it GNU/Linux because I believe in giving credit where it's due.
Is it bad form for GNU to insist their name be part of the OS they created? Maybe, but it's their right to, they made it! And if it is, it's equally rude for Torvalds to claim sole naming rights on the work of GNU.
Member since:
2006-12-18
Since the changelog(pure text) from the last version is ~5MB, I would say a lot has changed, and it is worthy of a little notice on OSNews...