Slashdot Mirror


The Future Of The 2.0 Linux Kernel

An Anonymous Reader writes: "The first 2.0 stable kernel was released over six years ago, in June of 1996. It was followed by the 2.2 stable kernel two and a half years later, in January of 1999. The more recent 2.4 stable kernel followed by two years in January of 2001. And the upcoming 2.6 kernel is at least a year off. Through all these years, 2.0 has continued to be maintained, currently up to revision 2.0.39, also released in January of 2001. David Weinehall maintains this kernel, and says, "there _are_ people that still use 2.0 and wouldn't consider an upgrade the next few years, simply because they know that their software/hardware works with 2.0 and have documented all quirks. Upgrading to a newer kernel-series means going through this work again." Read the full story here."

3 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Um, HUH? by markhlfs · · Score: 4, Informative

    Er. Not quite correct:

    ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.0/testing /
    -rw-r--r-- 1 korg korg 131967 Jun 25 18:53 patch-2.0.40-rc6.bz2
    -rw-r--r-- 1 korg korg 248 Jun 25 18:53 patch-2.0.40-rc6.bz2.sign
    -rw-r--r-- 1 korg korg 157277 Jun 25 18:53 patch-2.0.40-rc6.gz
    -rw-r--r-- 1 korg korg 248 Jun 25 18:53 patch-2.0.40-rc6.gz.sign

    So the latest release candidate for 2.0.40 was only released back in June. Doesn't look dead to me.

  2. Re:good problems by DrQu+xum · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why have 4 active kernel lines?

    2.0: Legacy systems & embedded. It's tiny!
    2.2: Middle-aged systems or wherever stability is a must. RH6.x and other 2.2-based distros are still in widespread use.
    2.4: New systems with new hardware that requires new drivers.
    2.5: Development. Don't use in a production environment, lest you fall down and go boom.

    Besides, each line has a different head maintainer.

    --
    DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
  3. Re:Um, HUH? by tao · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've done 9 pre-releases since January 2001, and I'm probably going to release 2.0.40 any day now (I have one thing to do some research on first.) While the flow of releases isn't quite the same as that of the 2.4-series, it is maintained. Something would be really wrong if I had to release a new kernel every month, 6 years after the release of the first 2.0-kernel...

    I open a new revision whenever I get a serious enough bug-report and/or fix, and release pre-patches/release-candidates until everything seems to have slowed down again. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    Releases every one and a half years or so, with interim releases every month or two seems to be a pretty decent pace for a really stable kernel-series. Most of my users aren't the kind that does regular kernel-upgrades anyway; they usually inspect a new 2.0-kernel very carefully before installing it on their hardware.

    Regards: David Weinehall, maintainer of the 2.0-series