Kernal question - Mandriva

This is a discussion on Kernal question - Mandriva ; If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the latest kernal?...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Kernal question

  1. Kernal question


    If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the latest
    kernal?


  2. Re: Kernal question

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:47:11 -0600, Peaceful Bill wrote:
    >
    > If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the latest
    > kernal?


    Only if you have run updates and the mirror has the latest kernel.

    http://www.mandriva.com/en/security/...ies?dis=2009.0

  3. Re: Kernal question

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:47:11 -0600, Peaceful Bill wrote:

    > If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the latest
    > kernal?


    No.

    It's "kernel", BTW.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

  4. Re: Kernal question

    Bit Twister wrote:
    > On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:47:11 -0600, Peaceful Bill wrote:
    >> If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the latest
    >> kernal?

    >
    > Only if you have run updates and the mirror has the latest kernel.
    >
    > http://www.mandriva.com/en/security/...ies?dis=2009.0



    So if I run the configuration utility and update the system, this will
    download and install the latest kernel?

  5. Re: Kernal question

    On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:17:32 -0600, Peaceful Bill wrote:

    > So if I run the configuration utility and update the system, this will
    > download and install the latest kernel?


    It will install the latest Mandriva kernel. If you want the actual latest
    kernel, you need to go to kernel.org and get it. The only good reason to
    upgrade your kernel IMO is that you've added something that's not
    supported in your current version.

    --
    Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
    My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
    Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
    AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

  6. Re: Kernal question

    Peaceful Bill schrieb:
    >
    > If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the latest
    > kernal?
    >


    After installing Mandriva 2009-one from LIve-CD - 2 weeks ago - i got
    today the latest kernel by Mandriva-Update.
    It's the kernel 2.6.27.4-1 and a special wifi-kernel.
    There are now some changes in the connecting-manager-applet.

    An usb-stick is no more /dev/sd'x' but now /dev/uba, etc.


    Regards
    Manfred

  7. Re: Kernal question

    Peaceful Bill wrote:

    >
    > If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the latest
    > kernal?


    No you run Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)

  8. Re: Kernal question

    On Wednesday 05 November 2008 14:40, someone identifying as *Dan C* wrote
    in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

    > On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:47:11 -0600, Peaceful Bill wrote:
    >
    >> If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the latest
    >> kernal?

    >
    > No.
    >
    > It's "kernel", BTW.


    As much as I prefer the word /kernel/ myself and as much as it is the
    mainstream denominator for an operating system's high-privilege core, the
    spelling "kernal" seems to be generally accepted as well.

    According to Wikipedia, the *Kernal* was in fact the core (and thus
    a /kernel/ of some sorts) of the ROM-based Commodore 8-bit operating
    system.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernal

    Allegedly, the use of "kernal" instead of "kernel" has become somewhat
    accepted because of somebody at AT&T - not Ritchie or Thompson, though; it
    was more of an executive kind of character - or at either IBM or Sun
    Microsystems. I don't recall the details anymore, but the company was some
    fairly big player in the UNIX world. ;-)

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  9. Re: Kernal question

    On Wednesday 05 November 2008 13:47, someone identifying as *Peaceful Bill*
    wrote in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

    > If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the latest
    > kernal?


    Most likely not. The CD/DVD images for the official distribution are
    normally created once only, safe of any circumstances where there would be
    an incircumventable flaw in them requiring a repackaging and rebuild of the
    images. The idea is that after you've installed the distribution to your
    hard disk, you start downloading the updates to fix any bugs.

    Live CDs are of course another matter, but bugs are usually less of an issue
    there since the idea of a Live CD is that you don't install anything to
    your hard disk, and that you only keep the machine running off of the CD
    for a limited time.

    Mandriva One does of course allow you to install the system to your hard
    disk, but then the same applies as with other distributions, i.e. you then
    download the updates and bugfixes.

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  10. Re: Kernal question

    F8BOE wrote:
    > Peaceful Bill wrote:
    >
    >> If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the latest
    >> kernal?

    >
    > No you run Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)


    On this computer, yes. I won't move my email over until I get the
    set-up I want. I'm trying a few different platforms. About the only
    thing I have settled on is that I prefer Gnome over KDE.


  11. Re: Kernal question

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:20:22 +0100, Aragorn wrote:

    >>> If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the
    >>> latest kernal?


    >> No.
    >> It's "kernel", BTW.


    > As much as I prefer the word /kernel/ myself and as much as it is the
    > mainstream denominator for an operating system's high-privilege core,
    > the spelling "kernal" seems to be generally accepted as well.


    Nope. See below.

    > According to Wikipedia, the *Kernal* was in fact the core (and thus a
    > /kernel/ of some sorts) of the ROM-based Commodore 8-bit operating
    > system.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernal


    Yes, it perhaps was part of the Commodore OS, long ago. However, we are
    talking about modern-day Linux here. Below are a few other clips, cut-n-
    pasted from the Wikipedia article you linked to:

    "This article is about Commodore's 8-bit OS software. Kernal is also a
    common misspelling of kernel."

    "The KERNAL was known as kernel[1] inside of Commodore since the PET days,
    but in 1980 Robert Russell misspelled the word in his notebooks forming
    the word kernal. When Commodore technical writers Neil Harris and Andy
    Finkel collected Russell's notes and used them as the basis for the VIC-20
    programmer's manual, the misspelling followed them along and stuck."

    "The (completely different) OS core in the 16/32-bit Commodore Amiga
    series was called the Amiga ROM Kernel, using the correct spelling of
    kernel."

    These clips would seem to clearly illustrate that the misspelling was
    applicable *only* to that primitive early OS, and do not follow along to
    common usage today.

    > Allegedly, the use of "kernal" instead of "kernel" has become somewhat
    > accepted because of somebody at AT&T - not Ritchie or Thompson, though;
    > it was more of an executive kind of character - or at either IBM or Sun
    > Microsystems. I don't recall the details anymore, but the company was
    > some fairly big player in the UNIX world. ;-)


    Don't know about that, but it's pretty weak "evidence"...


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

  12. Re: Kernel question

    On Thursday 06 November 2008 04:25, someone identifying as *Dan C* wrote
    in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

    > On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:20:22 +0100, Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >>>> If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the
    >>>> latest kernal?

    >
    >>> No.
    >>> It's "kernel", BTW.

    >
    >> As much as I prefer the word /kernel/ myself and as much as it is the
    >> mainstream denominator for an operating system's high-privilege core,
    >> the spelling "kernal" seems to be generally accepted as well.

    >
    > Nope. See below.
    >
    >> According to Wikipedia, the *Kernal* was in fact the core (and thus a
    >> /kernel/ of some sorts) of the ROM-based Commodore 8-bit operating
    >> system.
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernal

    >
    > Yes, it perhaps was part of the Commodore OS, long ago. However, we are
    > talking about modern-day Linux here.


    Granted, the two operating systems cannot be compared technically, but since
    in both cases it concerns an operating system core, they could both be
    considered kernels.

    > Below are a few other clips, cut-n-pasted from the Wikipedia article you
    > linked to:
    >
    > "This article is about Commodore's 8-bit OS software. Kernal is also a
    > common misspelling of kernel."


    Yes, I've read that part.

    > "The KERNAL was known as kernel[1] inside of Commodore since the PET days,
    > but in 1980 Robert Russell misspelled the word in his notebooks forming
    > the word kernal. When Commodore technical writers Neil Harris and Andy
    > Finkel collected Russell's notes and used them as the basis for the VIC-20
    > programmer's manual, the misspelling followed them along and stuck."
    >
    > "The (completely different) OS core in the 16/32-bit Commodore Amiga
    > series was called the Amiga ROM Kernel, using the correct spelling of
    > kernel."
    >
    > These clips would seem to clearly illustrate that the misspelling was
    > applicable *only* to that primitive early OS, and do not follow along to
    > common usage today.


    Well, I have seen it used in a Linux context - no pun intended - by many
    people without anyone really objecting to it, even when the replying people
    were certainly knowledgeable enough. Therefore I presumed that it was
    generally accepted as a "not really genuine but still popular" denominator.

    Of course, correct verbage is always preferred - communication is often
    already difficult enough without that people start misspelling things - and
    "kernel" is indeed the correct term for an operating system core running in
    the processor's highest privilege mode(s).

    This is - by the way - also why I prefer to use the term "GNU/Linux" in
    written communication as opposed to plain "Linux" when speaking of the
    operating system - although in verbal communication I will of course simply
    abbreviate to "Linux" - and of "Linux" when I refer to the kernel only.

    I've had this discussion before a few times - including here with "the
    dreaded person from California" - best not to wake any sleeping dogs cough> - but just for the record and to state my case, you (and other
    readers) may have already heard of Nexenta OS. For those readers who
    haven't, it's a FOSS operating system distribution using the GNU userland
    and the OpenSolaris kernel.

    So in essence, it could be called GNU/kOpenSolaris. Yet, I don't think that
    either the Free Software Foundation /or/ Sun Microsystem would be too happy
    if people started calling Nexenta OS "Solaris". Fortunately, the operating
    system in question here has been given an independent name, while
    unfortunately this could for practical reasons not be done with GNU/Linux
    due to the ego conflicts between Linus & friends on the one hand and the
    FSF on the other hand.

    >> Allegedly, the use of "kernal" instead of "kernel" has become somewhat
    >> accepted because of somebody at AT&T - not Ritchie or Thompson, though;
    >> it was more of an executive kind of character - or at either IBM or Sun
    >> Microsystems. I don't recall the details anymore, but the company was
    >> some fairly big player in the UNIX world. ;-)

    >
    > Don't know about that, but it's pretty weak "evidence"...


    Well, I must apologize here. I hadn't really read through the entire
    article to which I posted the link, and you were correct to point out above
    that the misnomer originated and was used solely within the Commodore
    company, whereas I believed to remember that it was in some other company
    and from the UNIX world.

    I guess I should have been more careful in my reading, but I kind of had a
    few things going on in my mind at the same time, so I just looked at the
    top paragraph of the page and then pasted the link. ;-)

    Subject line of this thread grammatically corrected to suit. ;-)

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  13. Re: Kernel question

    Ha! I can outdo you guys in up-my-own-assing.

    Google hits:
    linux-kernel 3,300,000
    linux-kernal 56,000
    linux-kenel 3,310

    So "silly" mistakes like "kenel" occur at about 1 in 1000 which is roughly
    as expected, but "kernal" is more frequent at 1 in 60, presumably due to
    the aforementioned reasons, so I'd categorise it as a "pervasive error" but
    not quite common enough to qualify as "somewhat accepted".


  14. Re: Kernal question

    >> Allegedly, the use of "kernal" instead of "kernel" has become somewhat
    >> accepted because of somebody at AT&T - not Ritchie or Thompson, though;
    >> it was more of an executive kind of character - or at either IBM or Sun
    >> Microsystems. I don't recall the details anymore, but the company was
    >> some fairly big player in the UNIX world. ;-)

    >
    > Don't know about that, but it's pretty weak "evidence"...

    ====================================
    In Collins Reference English Dictionary ,1992 edition , there is no
    mentioning of 'kernal'

    It looks like it that the word 'kernal' was perpetutated following a
    misspelling.
    On the other hand , language is a living thing.
    Many 'modern'words once concocted are often universally accepted .
    With so many radio DJs around ,this is not surprising )


    Frank

  15. Re: Kernal question

    Aragorn wrote:
    > On Wednesday 05 November 2008 14:40, someone identifying as *Dan C* wrote
    > in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/
    >
    >
    >>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:47:11 -0600, Peaceful Bill wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the latest
    >>>kernal?

    >>
    >>No.
    >>
    >>It's "kernel", BTW.

    >
    >
    > As much as I prefer the word /kernel/ myself and as much as it is the
    > mainstream denominator for an operating system's high-privilege core, the
    > spelling "kernal" seems to be generally accepted as well.


    Maybe "widely used" rather than "accepted".

    There are some words that just seem to be commonly misspelled.
    "Seperated" is another one.

    Both are wrong. There is no common English word starting with "kerna",
    and none starting with "sepe".

    Frank


  16. Re: Kernal question

    Peaceful Bill wrote:
    > F8BOE wrote:
    >
    >> Peaceful Bill wrote:
    >>
    >>> If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the latest
    >>> kernal?

    >>
    >>
    >> No you run Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)

    >
    >
    > On this computer, yes. I won't move my email over until I get the
    > set-up I want. I'm trying a few different platforms. About the only
    > thing I have settled on is that I prefer Gnome over KDE.


    You strange person, you! Or have you only been exposed to KDE4?

    Frank

  17. Re: Kernal question

    Highland Ham wrote:
    >>> Allegedly, the use of "kernal" instead of "kernel" has become somewhat
    >>> accepted because of somebody at AT&T - not Ritchie or Thompson, though;
    >>> it was more of an executive kind of character - or at either IBM or Sun
    >>> Microsystems. I don't recall the details anymore, but the company was
    >>> some fairly big player in the UNIX world. ;-)

    >>
    >> Don't know about that, but it's pretty weak "evidence"...

    > ====================================
    > In Collins Reference English Dictionary ,1992 edition , there is no
    > mentioning of 'kernal'
    >
    > It looks like it that the word 'kernal' was perpetutated following a
    > misspelling.
    > On the other hand , language is a living thing.
    > Many 'modern'words once concocted are often universally accepted .
    > With so many radio DJs around ,this is not surprising )
    >

    Language is indeed a living, changing thing. I'm sure that most, if not
    all "Americanized" spellings of a number of common English words were
    originally considered unacceptable, even here in the United States. That
    would be spellings like "color" versus "colour" and others. In fact, my
    spell checker flags "colour" as a misspelling, when it most certainly is
    not.

    It's not just here in the United States, either. How many words are
    spelled differently today in modern British than they were in Old English?

    TJ

  18. Re: Kernal question

    TJ writes:

    >Highland Ham wrote:
    >>>> Allegedly, the use of "kernal" instead of "kernel" has become somewhat
    >>>> accepted because of somebody at AT&T - not Ritchie or Thompson, though;
    >>>> it was more of an executive kind of character - or at either IBM or Sun
    >>>> Microsystems. I don't recall the details anymore, but the company was
    >>>> some fairly big player in the UNIX world. ;-)
    >>>
    >>> Don't know about that, but it's pretty weak "evidence"...

    >> ====================================
    >> In Collins Reference English Dictionary ,1992 edition , there is no
    >> mentioning of 'kernal'
    >>
    >> It looks like it that the word 'kernal' was perpetutated following a
    >> misspelling.
    >> On the other hand , language is a living thing.
    >> Many 'modern'words once concocted are often universally accepted .
    >> With so many radio DJs around ,this is not surprising )
    >>

    >Language is indeed a living, changing thing. I'm sure that most, if not
    >all "Americanized" spellings of a number of common English words were
    >originally considered unacceptable, even here in the United States. That
    >would be spellings like "color" versus "colour" and others. In fact, my
    >spell checker flags "colour" as a misspelling, when it most certainly is
    >not.


    >It's not just here in the United States, either. How many words are
    >spelled differently today in modern British than they were in Old English?


    Spelling anywhere was not standardised until the 19th century, long after
    American and British English had separated. Spelling now is pretty
    standardised and with computer spell checkers, even more so. This will not
    remove misspellings but to regard them as part of the "evolving language"
    is pretty perverse. New words is another issue.


    >TJ


  19. Re: Kernal question

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:05:45 -0500, TJ wrote:

    > I'm sure that most, if not
    > all "Americanized" spellings of a number of common English words were
    > originally considered unacceptable, even here in the United States. That
    > would be spellings like "color" versus "colour" and others.


    It's the other way round. That's how they used to be spelled in England.

  20. Re: Kernal question

    On Thursday 06 November 2008 13:20, someone identifying as *Frank Peelo*
    wrote in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/

    > Aragorn wrote:
    >
    >> On Wednesday 05 November 2008 14:40, someone identifying as *Dan C* wrote
    >> in /alt.os.linux.mandriva:/
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:47:11 -0600, Peaceful Bill wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> If I just installed 2009.0 from the One Live CD, am I running the
    >>>> latest kernal?
    >>>
    >>> No.
    >>>
    >>> It's "kernel", BTW.

    >>
    >> As much as I prefer the word /kernel/ myself and as much as it is the
    >> mainstream denominator for an operating system's high-privilege core, the
    >> spelling "kernal" seems to be generally accepted as well.

    >
    > Maybe "widely used" rather than "accepted".


    Okay okay, so I've worded it wrongly. ;-) I was tired when I wrote that
    reply, so give me a break, guys. :-)

    > There are some words that just seem to be commonly misspelled.
    > "Seperated" is another one.


    Oh, trust me, I come across *loads* of (consistently and persistently)
    misspelled words every day, both in English and in Dutch, and I will even
    add that while I was qualified as speaking and writing a near-perfect
    English and a near-perfect Dutch[1], all typos excluded, I will also often
    misspell words or use incorrect grammatical forms[2] due to fatigue.

    *[1]* As you may or may not know, I reside in Belgium, and more particularly
    in the Northern half of the country, which is called the Flanders and where
    Southern Dutch is the official language.

    (Northern Dutch is the Dutch as spoken by the people of the Netherlands, and
    while it shares its vocabulary, spelling and grammar with Southern Dutch
    (or Flemish), it's a different culture and they have different ways of
    saying things, different expressions, and a very different pronunciation
    with a lot of influences from English and German, whereas Flemish has a lot
    of influences from French, due to Belgium having been occupied by the
    French twice throughout our history, and the Flemish people having been
    oppressed by the French-speaking nobility, the wealthy and the clergy up
    until the 1920s.)

    *[2]* In Dutch, the rules for spelling first, second and third person
    singular of a verb can be quite confusing when the stem of the verb ends in
    a "d" or "t" - the source of the confusion lies with the use of just the
    "d" or "t" versus "dt" in second and third person singular while this is
    not the case for second person singular when the verb precedes the subject
    of the sentence. This confusion and the tendency to misspell tends to wash
    over to the perfect past tense of the verb as well when that ends in either
    a "t" or a "d", even though I myself do know the rules perfectly. And then
    there are those people who do *not* know the rules, or who simply don't
    care about them - any degrees of dyslexia not even taken into account.

    One of the recurring topics of discussion while I was participating in the
    newsgroup about Belgian politics was that all those from the ultrarightwing
    - who seek to separate the Flanders from the rest of the country and refuse
    to speak French, even though the newsgroup was officially trilingual, as
    Belgium has three official languages, being Dutch, French and German -
    could simply not write a single sentence in their beloved Flemish without
    making at least three or four misspellings and/or grammatical errors. ;-)

    > Both are wrong. There is no common English word starting with "kerna",
    > and none starting with "sepe".


    I never said that they were in the dictionary. ;-)

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast