Branches
Articles referencing this project
- Red Hat: Updated kernel packages fix various security issues
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Sun, May 11th 2008 11:45
- Red Hat: Updated kernel packages fix various security issues
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Sun, May 11th 2008 11:43
- Red Hat: Updated kernel packages fix various security issues
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Sun, May 11th 2008 11:42
- Debian: New Linux 2.6.18 packages fix several vulnerabilities
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Mon, May 5th 2008 03:43
- SuSE: New kernel packages fix remote denial of service
by Patrick Lenz
,
in Security
Sun, Mar 30th 2008 14:25
|
|
Comments
[»]
Encryption?
by Gwren - Jan 20th 2008 13:13:11
What's new about encryption? I missed it...
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Out of date
by metalzelot - Jan 5th 2007 15:46:31
Is it for a reason that the 2.6 branch hasnt been updated since
11-May-2006?
The latest release is 2.6.19.1 from the 11-December-2006, the latest
listed one is 2.6.16.16.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Out of date
by jeff covey - Jan 6th 2007 05:03:10
> Is it for a reason that the 2.6 branch
> hasnt been updated since 11-May-2006?
Yes, you haven't updated it.
--
vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er n trrx.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Out of date
by manuel - May 2nd 2007 14:29:52
> Is it for a reason that the 2.6 branch
> hasnt been updated since 11-May-2006?
>
> The latest release is 2.6.19.1 from the
> 11-December-2006, the latest listed one
> is 2.6.16.16.
Seems there has been an update in april :-)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Updates
by records guru - Nov 10th 2006 06:32:09
Anyone have any idea if a new version is about to be released?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Updates
by D-Man - Dec 20th 2006 06:38:12
Do you think it needs any more enhancements anyway?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
I hope the next release is soon
by JennyFromTheBlock - Oct 3rd 2006 22:26:10
I hope they come out with 2.8 soon. I really liked the last enhancements.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Just a comment
by Marcus Moll - Sep 30th 2006 19:25:33
It's getting better and better
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Just a comment
by Kei - Feb 25th 2007 06:45:57
I really agree with you. I love Linux because it becomes better and
better.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
IPC errors?
by seobook - Apr 22nd 2006 11:14:22
I am running 2.4.x and getting out of ipc errors in my message log before
panic and reboot... does 2.6.x fix this? I do not see it in the whats
changed but people have sugested it
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: IPC errors?
by easyMobile - Apr 29th 2006 14:24:16
"does 2.6.x fix this" yes, thats for sure... me and a friend of mine just
tested this version, it is stable.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: IPC errors?
by RayfromNJ - Jul 14th 2006 12:16:02
> "does 2.6.x fix this" yes, thats for
> sure... me and a friend of mine just
> tested this version, it is stable.
>
>
Thanks for posting this. The IPC erros have been driving me wild
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: IPC errors?
by We Major - Dec 18th 2007 09:07:28
>
> % "does 2.6.x fix this" yes, thats for
> % sure... me and a friend of mine just
> % tested this version, it is stable.
Is there a solution for 2.4? I have several modules that haven't been
updated for 2.6?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
linux
by Philippe F. - Oct 2nd 2005 19:20:50
Keep up the good work!
--
--
Philippe
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: linux
by Linux Dancer - Oct 25th 2005 09:43:39
>
>
> Keep up the good work!
Yeah, Linux gives me an alternative! I love you guys!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
2.6 fixes my random panics
by DavidWebb - Sep 6th 2005 18:53:57
I had been having tons of "out of ipc" errors and kernel panics.
I upgraded to 2.6 and my box has been stable since!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: 2.6 fixes my random panics
by nikzzzzz - Sep 29th 2005 10:12:57
> I had been having tons of "out of
> ipc" errors and kernel panics. I
> upgraded to 2.6 and my box has been
> stable since!
I found this post after searching for the IPC error. It fixed my problems
as well! thanks!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Linux 2.6.11.10 released
by Veerakumar - May 19th 2005 00:49:46
Linux 2.6.11.10 released. It contains bug fixes and stability updates.
--
Visit me at Veera
[reply]
[top]
[»]
God bless it
by roger webb - Apr 3rd 2005 17:40:59
God bless Linux.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: God bless it
by Rick Rona - Dec 2nd 2005 18:31:45
> God bless Linux.
Lol more like God bless LINUS
[reply]
[top]
[»]
A handy program
by Breadcrust - Mar 7th 2005 22:16:57
Linux is one of those programs, that I cant live without ;-). It does
everything it should, and the source code has a good amount of swearing
too. Keep up the work on Linux all you kernal hackers. ^^
[reply]
[top]
[»]
2.6.11.1 is the Official Latest
by ^chewie - Mar 6th 2005 14:16:19
I'm a bit surprised that the latest announcement for the 2.6 branch didn't
mention the new kernel versioning scheme and the subsequent
release of 2.6.11.1
by Greg KH. Article at kerneltrap.org
--
assert(knowledge(expired)); /* core dump */
[reply]
[top]
[»]
WinZip on Linux?
by Methyl1Test - Jan 27th 2005 12:28:28
Is there a form of Winzip that I can use on Linux systems? I have a file I
DLed from a windows based cpu. But its a winzip file. Ive been searching
for a Linux alternative that REALLY works. If anyone knows of something.
Please let me know. Thanks.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: WinZip on Linux?
by Breadcrust - Jan 31st 2005 05:05:17
in the shell, you can use the unzip command.
if you want a gui, there is ark for kde and file roller for gnome.
btw, these questions are better asked @ linuxquestions.org
[reply]
[top]
[»]
linux
by trs1800 - Oct 17th 2004 13:29:13
hey this program is great i use it every time i get on my computer, keep up
the good work!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: linux
by mvoehringer - Feb 24th 2006 16:17:29
i also use it every day and i think many others too ;)
--
www.voehringer.net
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Trove categories
by Bastian Kleineidam - Jul 30th 2003 01:46:49
huh, they are totally fucked up. "Shareware", "Visual
Basic" and Windows OS :)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Trove categories
by Michael Birk - Jul 30th 2003 04:19:21
> huh, they are totally fucked up.
> "Shareware", "Visual
> Basic" and Windows OS :)
This has been fixed. Previously anybody could edit trove categories!
[reply]
[top]
[»]
BK tags
by Schneelocke - Jan 2nd 2003 04:48:00
Does anyone have an idea why 2.5.54 is not tagged in Linus' bk tree?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: BK tags
by Schneelocke - Jan 2nd 2003 08:28:42
> Does anyone have an idea why 2.5.54 is
> not tagged in Linus' bk tree?
>
Forget what I said - the tag's there now. :)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
2.5.62 config options
by Macdaddy - Feb 21st 2003 13:42:43
Is there some reason why almost every misc option is enabled in
2.5.62's config? It's almost as bloated as a Redhat run-on-anything
kernel.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: 2.5.62 config options
by Alex Tribble - Mar 18th 2005 17:29:44
Even though the previous post is 2 years old, this is still the case, so
I'll try to explain:
Developers need to make sure that changes they make to one section of the
codebase don't break code in other sections, especially in a system as
tightly coupled and interdependent as the kernel, so they set all (or
most) drivers to compile by default, to promote testing by the countless
throngs of programmers.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: 2.5.62 config options
by Kris Yoder - Feb 8th 2006 17:32:58
> Even though the previous post is 2 years
> old, this is still the case, so I'll try
> to explain:
> Developers need to make sure that
> changes they make to one section of the
> codebase don't break code in other
> sections, especially in a system as
> tightly coupled and interdependent as
> the kernel, so they set all (or most)
> drivers to compile by default, to
> promote testing by the countless throngs
> of programmers.
This takes all the fun out of linux =P
[reply]
[top]
[»]
i2o support broken in kernel > 2.4.10
by Sinisa Bandin - Feb 11th 2002 03:36:37
Has anybody else noticed this?
I have an Intel SRCU-31 i2o based RAID adapter, and I cannot make it work
in any kernel since 2.4.10, neither as a module nor a built-in driver.
Kernel just oops-es on startup.
Up to 2.4.10 i2o worked fine, but ABI support was broken for my dual P!!!,
now ABI-patch works fine in 2.4.17, but i2o isn't :(
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Kernel security
by Tomek Lutelmowski - Nov 26th 2001 14:12:53
I wonder why patches like openwall or grsecurity are not integrated into
standard kernel. Don't bother with back compatibility! I'm using 2.4.16 +
grsecurity patch on production server (Apache, Postfix, Cucipop,
PostgreSQL, Squid) and I must admit it is very stable and more secure than
2.4.16 kernel itself. Kernel deveopers, please - put those patches into
kernel and good times for Linux will begin.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Kernel security
by mr. shin hiko fugu momorin - Nov 27th 2001 01:08:47
> I wonder why patches like openwall or
> grsecurity are not integrated into
> standard kernel. Don't bother with back
> compatibility! I'm using 2.4.16 +
> grsecurity patch on production server
> (Apache, Postfix, Cucipop, PostgreSQL,
> Squid) and I must admit it is very
> stable and more secure than 2.4.16
> kernel itself. Kernel deveopers, please
> - put those patches into kernel and good
> times for Linux will begin.
I'd assume because of crypto import/export issues, not all countries have
the same laws. Also, 2.4.16 is only released today, how can you tell if
it's stable? I am still running 2.4.9 w/ 86.5 day uptime and I'd hesitate
to call that stable even.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Kernel security
by Styx - Nov 28th 2001 05:25:27
> I wonder why patches like openwall or
> grsecurity are not integrated into
> standard kernel. Don't bother with back
> compatibility! I'm using 2.4.16 +
> grsecurity patch on production server
> (Apache, Postfix, Cucipop, PostgreSQL,
> Squid) and I must admit it is very
> stable and more secure than 2.4.16
> kernel itself. Kernel deveopers, please
> - put those patches into kernel and good
> times for Linux will begin.
Well, I don't think enough of the code is "standard" enough, and
some of the features are crudely implemented. Take a look at grsecurity's
changelog, quite a lot of bugfixes. I think that if they are going to
implement security patches like that, the code had to been cleaner, less
intrusive, and more stable.
--
Joachim Blaabjerg
styx@mailbox.as
www.SuxOS.org
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Kernel security
by Crim - Nov 4th 2002 20:38:38
The problem is with the cryptography aspect of the kernel, you couldn't
then legally export it out of the US for example.
> I wonder why patches like openwall or
> grsecurity are not integrated into
> standard kernel. Don't bother with back
> compatibility! I'm using 2.4.16 +
> grsecurity patch on production server
> (Apache, Postfix, Cucipop, PostgreSQL,
> Squid) and I must admit it is very
> stable and more secure than 2.4.16
> kernel itself. Kernel deveopers, please
> - put those patches into kernel and good
> times for Linux will begin.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Kernel security
by Crim - Aug 26th 2005 02:54:09
> The problem is with the cryptography
> aspect of the kernel, you couldn't then
> legally export it out of the US for
> example.
>
>
>
> % I wonder why patches like openwall or
> % grsecurity are not integrated into
> % standard kernel. Don't bother with
> back
> % compatibility! I'm using 2.4.16 +
> % grsecurity patch on production server
> % (Apache, Postfix, Cucipop,
> PostgreSQL,
> % Squid) and I must admit it is very
> % stable and more secure than 2.4.16
> % kernel itself. Kernel deveopers,
> please
> % - put those patches into kernel and
> good
> % times for Linux will begin.
>
>
>
Necro bump :)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
/proc/meminfo - "cached" value weird in 2.4.13-ac5
by Bernd Pissny - Nov 2nd 2001 19:57:46
total: used: free: shared: buffers: cached:
Mem: 261554176 244891648 16662528 131072 133689344
18446744073638670336
Cached: 4294898076 kB
this seems not right to me ;) ...
I recently upgraded from 2.4.9 to 2.2.13-ac5, since then i get these
strange high values for the "Cached memory" item. Has anybody
encountered similar problems ?
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Uhmmm...Floppy support is broken for Linux-2.4.12-ac1
by Scott A. Conway - Oct 14th 2001 21:01:38
I just wanted to mention that somehow or other, this patch of Linux, while
being useful in correcting the parport compilation bug in plain 2.4.12,
has broken floppy drive (at least MSDOS/VFAT) support. Using
"mdir" gives me this error:
Can't open /dev/fd0: Device not configured
Cannot initialize 'A:'
--
There is no dark side of the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Hilarious reason for release:
by Hattig - Sep 17th 2001 07:54:05
"This is just a resync as various people work to get most of
-ac into Linus"
Really? Must be painful for Linus.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
hi
by Adam1 - Aug 28th 2001 10:22:37
linux is cool
[reply]
[top]
[»]
hint
by Jason Wood - Apr 1st 2001 04:07:09
You have to understand the "fundamentals" of encryption to enjoy
the changelog.
--
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hint
by Martijn - Apr 1st 2001 05:00:54
> You have to understand the
> "fundamentals" of encryption
> to enjoy the changelog.
>
Hahaha, this is going to be a good day. The beautiful weather here in
Amsterdam helps, too :)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hint
by chabotc - Apr 1st 2001 06:36:01
> You have to understand the
> "fundamentals" of encryption
> to enjoy the changelog.
>
A hint to people who can't spell 'fundementals', cut&paste it into an
email in netscape mail, mail it to self, right click ... well u get the
point ...
--
"I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hint
by Charl P. Botha - Apr 1st 2001 07:07:00
>
> % You have to understand the
> % "fundamentals" of
> encryption
> % to enjoy the changelog.
> %
>
> A hint to people who can't spell
> 'fundementals', cut&paste it into an
> email in netscape mail, mail it to self,
> right click ... well u get the point ...
>
>
>
Err, maybe you should send such a mail to yourself. The correct spelling
is indeed "fundamentals". A smattering of Latin tends to clear
this problem up. Actually, a smattering of real English does too. :)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hint
by chabotc - Apr 1st 2001 07:51:49
>
> %
> % % You have to understand the
> % % "fundamentals" of
> % encryption
> % % to enjoy the changelog.
> % %
> %
> % A hint to people who can't spell
> % 'fundementals', cut&paste it
> into an
> % email in netscape mail, mail it to
> self,
> % right click ... well u get the point
> ...
> %
> %
> %
>
>
> Err, maybe you should send such a mail
> to yourself. The correct spelling is
> indeed "fundamentals". A
> smattering of Latin tends to clear this
> problem up. Actually, a smattering of
> real English does too. :)
>
Actualy i was hinting towards a way to decrypt the change log, not
commenting on the spelling :)
--
"I dont suffer from insanity, i enjoy every minute of it!"
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hint
by Charl P. Botha - Apr 1st 2001 09:14:35
>
> %
> % %
> % % % You have to understand the
> % % % "fundamentals" of
> % % encryption
> % % % to enjoy the changelog.
> % % %
> % %
> % % A hint to people who can't spell
> % % 'fundementals', cut&paste it
> % into an
> % % email in netscape mail, mail it
> to
> % self,
> % % right click ... well u get the
> point
> % ...
> % %
> % %
> % %
> %
> %
> % Err, maybe you should send such a
> mail
> % to yourself. The correct spelling
> is
> % indeed "fundamentals".
> A
> % smattering of Latin tends to clear
> this
> % problem up. Actually, a smattering
> of
> % real English does too. :)
> %
>
>
> Actualy i was hinting towards a way to
> decrypt the change log, not commenting
> on the spelling :)
>
My bad. :)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hint
by Jason Wood - Apr 1st 2001 16:14:35
Note to self: Do not post something to Freshmeat at 4am in the morning. I
sent a message to the Freshmeat maintainers to delete my comment, but I
guess they didn't do anything but laugh.
I thought my comment would only get posted under the NSA release (oops).
Yes folks my speling stinks. I usually spellcheck before posting, but
like I said it was late and I was out of it.
> Err, maybe you should send such a mail
> to yourself. The correct spelling is
> indeed "fundamentals". A
> smattering of Latin tends to clear this
> problem up. Actually, a smattering of
> real English does too. :)
>
--
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hint
by ari - Apr 1st 2001 12:20:50
You're all diseased. What's wrong with just typing
rot13 and pasting into the terminal? :)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hint
by lsetia - Apr 1st 2001 06:42:06
Paste the Changelog in an empty emacs buffer, and
do a M-x toggle-rot13-mode
enter
Voila! (PS: M-x means press Alt and 'x'
together).
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hint
by Matthew Hawkins - Jul 2nd 2002 23:44:58
>
> Voila! (PS: M-x means press Alt and 'x'
> together).
>
Go back to sesame street and learn your alphabet.
<b>M</b> is for <b>Meta</b>
<b>A</b> is for <b>Alt</b>
M-x means to hold <b>Meta</b> and press x.
Pressing Alt and x would be A-x.
Alt and Meta are <b>NOT</b> the same key!
(this is a pet hate of mine)
--
--
Matt
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: hint
by Schneelocke - Jan 2nd 2003 08:28:08
>
> %
> % Voila! (PS: M-x means press Alt and
> 'x'
> % together).
> %
>
>
> Go back to sesame street and learn your
> alphabet.
> <b>M</b> is for
> <b>Meta</b>
> <b>A</b> is for
> <b>Alt</b>
> M-x means to hold
> <b>Meta</b> and press x.
> Pressing Alt and x would be A-x.
> Alt and Meta are <b>NOT</b>
> the same key!
>
> (this is a pet hate of mine)
>
Technically, they're not, but most boxes which don't have a Meta key allow
you to use Alt as a substitute, and, let's face it - almost no box sold
today *has* a Meta key.
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Linux 2.4.5 and Freeswan 1.9 broke
by Dan Anderson - May 26th 2001 20:21:58
Linux 2.4.5 and Freeswan 1.9 is broken.
If you want to use the Freeswan patch, either:
1. go back to linux 2.4.3 (2.4.4 has serious problems)
2. wait for an official freeswan update, http://www.freeswan.org/
3. Try the bleeding-edge snapshots from freeswan.
(BTW, Freeswan adds IPSec to Linux)
[reply]
[top]
[»]
Re: Linux 2.4.5 and Freeswan 1.9 broke
by Joshua Jackson - Jun 4th 2001 18:30:54
> Linux 2.4.5 and Freeswan 1.9 is
> broken.
Here is a patch to make FreeSwan 1.9 work with
2.4.4... I have also gotten it to work just fine
with 2.4.5.
http://lists.freeswan.org/pipermail/bugs/2001-May/000004.html
[reply]
[top]
|
