Slashdot Mirror


Linux Kernel 2.2.23 Released

sekra writes "Alan Cox has released a new version of the 2.2 kernel. 2.2.23-rc2 was renamed to 2.2.23 without any changes. You can find the ChangeLog in his announcement and download the patch from your local mirror." There seems to be a flurry of releases this weekend.

129 comments

  1. Another line added to the kernel... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh no! Wait! Not even another line!

    Thanks for the announcement.

  2. 2.2 is obsolete! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    It has no usb support.
    It dosent support modern fses like rieser fs
    And all it has is stabillity. (like im gonna use a 486 for a server)

    1. Re:2.2 is obsolete! by stefanjo · · Score: 1

      Who cares it might be obsolete?? As long as anyone wants to use it it will be around and updated. Its open source remember?

    2. Re:2.2 is obsolete! by damiam · · Score: 2, Informative

      It has USB support, and it can be patched for most FSs.

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    3. Re:2.2 is obsolete! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      not all of us want to run out and spend money on a new server for something simple, like a mail server or a archive box or whatnot.

      a 486 will work just fine, my friend, you don't need a 4 Ghz machine to run a M: drive for your network.

    4. Re:2.2 is obsolete! by tempfile · · Score: 2

      I have a combined mail/news/gateway server running on a 486 with a 2.4.19 kernel. Would switching to a 2.2 kernel improve performance significantly?

    5. Re:2.2 is obsolete! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not enough to make it worth the hassle.

    6. Re:2.2 is obsolete! by Rhubarb+Crumble · · Score: 5, Funny
      And all it has is stabillity.

      Yeah, and who cares about stability anyway?

    7. Re:2.2 is obsolete! by moonbender · · Score: 5, Funny

      Exactly, I don't need no stinking sta - - - Connection to host lost.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    8. Re:2.2 is obsolete! by lowtekneq · · Score: 1

      err what exactly is an M: drive?

      --
      Carpe meam simiam!
    9. Re:2.2 is obsolete! by Trane+Francks · · Score: 2
      err what exactly is an M: drive?
      It's a reference to a LanManager or Samba fileshare on a server, mounted by the client so as to use a drive letter.
      --
      ...a FreeDOS contributor: http://www.freedos.org/
    10. Re:2.2 is obsolete! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looks like someone can't catch sarcasm

    11. Re:2.2 is obsolete! by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I use 2.4, but your complaining is silly.

      I have a PS/2 keyboard, as do 99% of PC users. I use a PS/2 mouse, which is getting a little less common, but *hardly* unheard of (esp. since Logitech makes PS/2-and-USB compatibile mice).

      2.2 would work quite fine for a server.

  3. Duplicate? by suwain_2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    People complain about duplicate stores... Imagine what I thought when I read about a 2.2 kernel being newly released! :)

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    1. Re:Duplicate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Look at the numbers.

      Spooky, isn't it ?

      2.2.22 gets replaced.

      What's wrong with all twos ? I think we should be told.....

      And 2.4.20 and 2.5.50 just came out.

      (20 / 4) / 2) = 2.5. Coincidence ?

      5 / 2 = 2.5. Coincidence ?

      50 / 20 = 2.5. Coincidence ?

      An alien intelligence is at work here. Mark my words......

    2. Re:Duplicate? by imnoteddy · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot postings since 200

      1800 years of posting to slahdot! kewl!

      --
      No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
    3. Re:Duplicate? by suwain_2 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Someone finally noticed! My signature got truncated a character too soon, but I figured it was more amusing that way... I think it's supposed to say 2000; you're the first to ever comment on that. Yay! :)

      --
      ________________________________________________
      suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
    4. Re:Duplicate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Alan Cox being alien should not come as a surprise on anyone, but what's that part about 'intelligence' ??

    5. Re:Duplicate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u r gay

    6. Re:Duplicate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone finally noticed! I figured it was more amusing that way... you're the first to ever comment on that. Yay! :)

    7. Re:Duplicate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .2.23 -> 2 + .2 + .3 = 2.5 Not simple coincidence!

  4. Slow news day eh? by TeknoHog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While the 2.4 releases are (barely) newsworthy, why this? Are some people still using the _latest_ 2.2 kernels? Is there a reason to update to 2.2.x if you can't go 2.4 for some reason?

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:Slow news day eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is newsworthy to know that the 2.2 line of kernels is still being maintained.

    2. Re:Slow news day eh? by kingkade · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm not sure but I think that most people who would be interested in this are admins who still run or must run 2.2 in order to not break binary compatibility with any drivers they need or software they've written.

      Just a guess.

    3. Re:Slow news day eh? by Isle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Surprise: The 2.0 kernels are also still being maintained.

    4. Re:Slow news day eh? by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have servers running 2.2... they do what they do well, they are real servers.. so at the moment there is absolutely no reason to risk the uncertainty that comes with doing a major upgrade.

    5. Re:Slow news day eh? by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, actually. We found that there are some VPNing tools that don't work correctly (or at all) under the 2.4.x kernel, but work just fune under 2.2.x.

    6. Re:Slow news day eh? by kasperd · · Score: 3, Informative

      binary compatibility with any drivers

      There is no garantee about binary compatibility for kernel code between any versions. Not even same source compiled with different options are garanteed to be binary compatible. You can however expect most driver sources to be compatible between the 2.2.x kernels.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    7. Re:Slow news day eh? by Gruturo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While the 2.4 releases are (barely) newsworthy, why this? Are some people still using the _latest_ 2.2 kernels? Is there a reason to update to 2.2.x if you can't go 2.4 for some reason?

      There is!
      I just setup a permanent IPSEC tunnel with freeswan and, for one of the boxes, which has an AMI MegaRAID controller, 2.4 simply _wont_ see the partition table (it sees the scsi ID, but that's it).
      After fighting with it for 6 hours, I just grabbed a 2.2.22, patched it with FreeS/WAN and here it is, humming quietly as it does its job.

      (And of course the next day 2.2.23 comes out. Argh.)

      --

      Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
    8. Re:Slow news day eh? by 00_NOP · · Score: 2

      Actually, the Playstation 2 - probably one of the biggest growth sources for Linux users, is running 2.2. Of course, in the Dreamcast world, we are already on to 2.5.

    9. Re:Slow news day eh? by packeteer · · Score: 2

      The 2.2 is outdated and everyone knows it. Thats not even hardly relevent here. When you use the 2.2 kernel its most likely on a box that needs stability. The new features of 2.2.23 probably wont bring anything new to your router. This update is pretty pointless unless you need one of the new feature which you probably dont. I heard about there being a security issue which you might care about but even then its probably not worth it.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    10. Re:Slow news day eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have a machine at home running 2.2. Never upgraded it to 2.4 mainly due to laziness and fear of breaking something. I just want that machine to run, but I try to keep it fairly up-to-date on 2.2 bugfixes for security reasons (the machine is exposed to The Internet).

      This box will eventually be eliminated, but it takes forever for me to get around to finishing things.

      As for whether 2.2 releases are "newsworthy" enough to Slashdot, I can't say.

    11. Re:Slow news day eh? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      I believe there's a 1.0 maintainer.

      Unlike Windows, where your code rapidly becomes unmaintained...about a five year lifespan.

    12. Re:Slow news day eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike other OSes, where the product is formally tested and pronounced finished at every release.

      The wandering Linux kernal source tree. Handy to always have the answer but it's not finished when anybody finds a way that it doesn't meet expectations.

    13. Re:Slow news day eh? by haggar · · Score: 2

      Is that really so? I tried to find any official page on the subject, but nisba. If there is such a maintainer, I'd be really interested to see his/her homepage.

      --
      Sigged!
    14. Re:Slow news day eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hooray. Let's hear it for the lack of a binary interface (ABI)!!

    15. Re:Slow news day eh? by tiny69 · · Score: 2

      I still use 2.2.x kernels because Openwall hasn't released a stable patch for the 2.4.x kernels yet. Don't even mention the GRSecurity patches. I've heard it's been getting better, but when it first came out the patch itself was ugly.

      --
      Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
  5. Nice job by koh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't stress enough the need to support older versions of the linux kernel if only for those people who simply can't switch for some reason.

    It may seem like a waste of time, but it's not. It's good to have older versions of the linux kernel still being maintained. Let's not be Autodesk or Microsoft, we're doing support the right way :)

    --
    Karma cannot be described by words alone.
    1. Re:Nice job by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      Amen, brother.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
  6. Re:Eh? by dEiMoS_DK · · Score: 2, Informative

    2.2.x it's the best for old computers, besides not everyone have AMD,Inetll - 2_GHz on VIA_Kt-400 with DDR ;-)

    --

  7. Re:Eh? by secolactico · · Score: 2, Informative

    Indeed. Those of us with *old* machines that still serve some function (and I'm talking about 486) are delighted to know that older, less demanding kernel versions are still maintained.

    --
    No sig
  8. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well.. I do for starters...

    I wonder if they'll ever get sun4d SMP support working in the 2.4 series stuff.

    I'm extatic that there's a new 2.2.x kernel now :)

  9. Excellent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I picked up a SparcServer1000E recently for nothing. 2.2.x series kernels are the only choice for me since sun4d architecture isn't supported under the 2.4.x kernels...

    Such a pity since I'd like to use LVM etc...

    Still.. I'm too dumb to fix it myself...

    1. Re:Excellent. by zerocool^ · · Score: 2

      You should really think about just installing solaris 7 or 8 on that. We have a few IPC/IPx's and Classics/LX's at work, (4c / 4m arch), and Linux runs like a turtle on uphill glass. It's aweful. Yet, it's either solaris 5.5.7 or solaris 7 runs smooth as can be, on everything from the IPC 12 mhz 4c's to our quad-proc 4X300 Ultra II.

      I don't particularly like solaris (or any SVR4), but for sun hardware, you'll be pleased with the performance gain.

      Of course, this is all contingent on it being used as a server. I hate openwindows. For a desktop, I'd rather run .. well anything but openwindows.

      --
      sig?
    2. Re:Excellent. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      What makes you think you have to run OpenWindows on Solaris?

      I am running FVWM2 and liking it a lot. Clean, fast, easy to maintain, and there's a binary distribution right on the Sunfreeware server. Sun just started distributing a release candidate GNOME binary distribution, if you like eye candy and don't mind the glacial speed.

      I get the benefit of dual headed 24 bit accelerated color on my SS10BSX box. None of the freenixes come close at all to supporting the cgfourteen framebuffers properly.

    3. Re:Excellent. by haggar · · Score: 2

      As another poster suggested: install Solaris. That way you'll also be able to install Solstice DiskSuite. I am sure you won't miss LVM.

      Sure, it can't do RAID 5 in software, but it's a helluva flexible, and it does RAID 1 + 0 by default (unlike Veritas, which really seems to discourage RAID 1 + 0 in favor of 0 + 1). With the latest patches it also supports soft partitions,so you got much more than just 7 slices. Add the concept of disksets to the lot, and you see how SDS is rather nice.

      --
      Sigged!
  10. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Most everyone who is making critical systems and embedded systems.

    the world is a lot larger than your house.

  11. lcall DoS by KjetilK · · Score: 5, Informative
    Well, as it was recently shouted on debian-security, the 2.2-series had the same security flaw that allowed any local user to crash a computer. So, if you have untrusted local users, you should upgrade.

    My router uses a floppy-based distro and that has the 2.2 kernel, and I really see no reason why I would want 2.4 on that old box. It isn't broken, so it doesn't need an upgrade to 2.4. You could say that it isn't very vulnerable to the mentioned problem either, because if someone got access to it, I would have a far bigger problem than them crashing my router. Others may have other uses for 2.2, so a fix of the mentioned problem is definately a Good Thing[tm] and nice news.

    --
    Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    1. Re:lcall DoS by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Well, for routers I'd say Netfilter could be a good thing. Although I guess it depends on your needs.

    2. Re:lcall DoS by Bronster · · Score: 2

      Well, for routers I'd say Netfilter could be a good thing. Although I guess it depends on your needs.

      As another coyote user, I'd have to agree. The problem is sticking everything you need for 2.4 kernel plus ipfilter userland on a single floppy. I've managed it (using uClibc) but only by throwing away SSH (don't get me started on how complex the SSH daemons are).

      Oh well, another project for the spare time.

  12. Re:Eh? by MarcQuadra · · Score: 3, Informative

    Embedded developers. When you're running on a low-power CPU and 4MB (or less) RAM and no swap you tend to value small footprint over kewl features. No reason my microwave oven needs USB, low latency, ReiserFS, etc. But what it DOES need is to be cheap to produce and reliable as all hell. Old kerels are MUCH more predictable too, they've got a lot longer to shake out the major bugs. I wouldn't want my hot-water heater running 2.4.11 now would I?

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
  13. At least one OS will maintain compatibility by hillct · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With the end-of-life nearing for DOS, Windows 3.1 and Windows95, leaving only Win2K and WinXP, from that other vendor, you'd think everyone would be happy to see that older hardware is still usable under Linuux using kernels that are inherently less resource-intensive.

    You can't have it both ways folks...

    --CTH

    --

    --Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
    1. Re:At least one OS will maintain compatibility by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 1

      You still do have Win98, like you woild use it for a server, but even then its getting its shall we say kernel chopped off on June 31, 2003. What about Me that piece of shit shouldn't have been executed a long time ago.

    2. Re:At least one OS will maintain compatibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is Win2K even totally supported by MS? In order to use office 11 I have to upgrade to SP3, and that doesn't work for me, therefore I wonder how much support I can even get from MS if I don't run SP3.

    3. Re:At least one OS will maintain compatibility by Trane+Francks · · Score: 2

      It might be a good opportunity to mention FreeDOS as a viable, open-source, 16-bit alternative to "that other vendor's" DOS. FreeDOS is actively being developed and maintained and will run on a lowly 8086 like any DOS should.

      --
      ...a FreeDOS contributor: http://www.freedos.org/
    4. Re:At least one OS will maintain compatibility by ClickWir · · Score: 0
      Well there's also the argument of "to move forward, sometimes old things need to be dropped". Which is totally valid. Personally I don't care if DOS and Win 3.1 are supported anymore. I'm suprised they held on as long as they did.

      Considering how much money MS would be making from sales of DOS and Win 3.1 (my estimate would be zero dollars) and then how much they would have to shell out to pay people to maintain and support it... money has to come from somewhere... buy your copy of Windows XP today for only $500.

      I can under stand that some people still like them and even still use them. But, I think, expecting them to be supported like the new things is just stupid. It's like taking your Atari 2600 down to the local Best Buy and asking them to trouble shoot why it's not working right. If your lucky, you'll get a laugh and they'll be nice enough to tell you to take a hike. If your still using something that old, you should know it inside and out enough to fix it yourself.

      I still really believe that old things need to be let go in order to make way for new. Granted if the old is working fine, don't mess with it... but don't expect it to be supported like the day it came out, or to work with the new things. My oppinion.

    5. Re:At least one OS will maintain compatibility by magister707 · · Score: 0

      This gets a score of 1 and every single thing I post gets a 0? Thanks, mods.

  14. Re:Eh? by suwain_2 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Plus, a lot of people with mission-critical servers don't upgrade the kernels -- they have a "If it ain't broken, fix it." There's no reason to reboot your webserver raking in big bucks just so you're running the latest, shiniest, kernel. Of course, the people who ignore the big security issues and just don't want to ruin their 500+ day uptimes... are idiots. :)

    Any for the record... I use Debian, and am running 2.4.19. And I'm pretty sure that even the "main" distribution of Debian now comes with a 2.4 kernel.

    --
    ________________________________________________
    suwain_2 :: quality slashdot p
  15. Re:Eh? by Carrot007 · · Score: 1

    > Any for the record... I use Debian, and am running 2.4.19. And I'm pretty sure that even the "main" distribution of Debian now comes with a 2.4 kernel.

    Debian 3 install 2.2 by default but has the OPTION of 2.4 afaik.

    Which is near enough for most people, I mena if you are using debian then you should be up to selecting a few options ;-)

    --
    +----------------- | What is the question!
  16. Then what about 1.2? by mangu · · Score: 5, Interesting
    My first Linux installation was an Yggdrasil distro with kernel 1.2.13. However, since I never got any good documentation for Yggdrasil I soon moved to Slackware, same kernel. The hardware was a 386/33MHz, 8Mb RAM, two IDE disks, one 80 Mb and another 120 Mb. I still have that hardware somewhere, except that the Mitsumi CD-ROM has died.


    Well, that was a nice kernel, worked fine, even with X, on a hardware that win95 had made obsolete. The motherboard had seven ISA slots, four free after the multi-IO, network, and CD-ROM went in. I did some hardware development on ISA cards. Too bad, no more. These days only industrial hardware, in the $5000+ range, have ISA slots, and PCI development can't be done by hobbyists.

    1. Re:Then what about 1.2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hobbyist PCI development is going strong!

    2. Re:Then what about 1.2? by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Hobbyist PCI development is going strong!

      You both are talking about the same thing right? Getting an empty ISA or PCI perfboard and sticking components on it?

      Or did you mean software?

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  17. safer computing: don't fix it if it ain't broken by nniillss · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Older kernels are maintained for the same reason that RedHat applies fixes to all recently shipped kernels: if a user needs a security update in a production system, he/she does only want to have the bug removed. Updating to the latest and greatest (kernel) with hundreds of new features might even be more risky than keeping the old (bugged/insecure) kernel version.

    On the other hand, if you have new hardware like e.g. a nforce2-board: use and test the newest kernel versions. I for my part am anxiously waiting for the new X86 version which will support the new Intel 845G chipsets.

  18. Still using 2.0.. by robbo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I work in a robotics lab and several of our robots are running 2.0. Why? The company that built them wrote drivers that run in 2.0 and they've since gone out of business. As long as the kernel is stable, which it is, it's not worth the development effort for us to write new 2.2 or 2.4 drivers. Given that the robot cost about $60K, we're also not eager to run out and buy a new one.

    --
    So long, and thanks for all the Phish
    1. Re:Still using 2.0.. by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Which robots do you have? We managed to upgrade almost all our robots to 2.4. Funny enough, it's the main server that is still on 2.2 because it needs propreitry raid drivers..

    2. Re:Still using 2.0.. by robbo · · Score: 2

      The main problem is our Nomad 200, by Nomadics. It has a driver called robotd which intefaces with the robot controller. We also have some Super Scouts, which can be upgraded in theory but it's a pain because they don't have floppy disks.

      --
      So long, and thanks for all the Phish
    3. Re:Still using 2.0.. by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

      So, what you're saying is you bought $60K robots from a company that wrote closed source drivers that only run on one growing-old version of Linux. And the company doesn't even exist anymore.

      You must be in government, or in a government funded lab, because if there were people at the top worrying about making money they'd be kicking your butt.

    4. Re:Still using 2.0.. by robbo · · Score: 2

      We have the source for the driver-- we just don't want to commit the resources to porting it. We have more important things to do than make sure we've got the latest kernel. As long as it's stable, and our code runs on it, we're happy. We've had the robot since '95. I'd say seven years is pretty good for a robot, especially from a company that sold itself to 3com for its wireless products. We're running 2.0.29.
      And you're close- we're a university lab, so there's no concern about making money. ;-)

      --
      So long, and thanks for all the Phish
  19. Re:In Fascist USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, the euro's value has been above the US dollar's value for quite some time... in your face, yank!

  20. Is it possible to downgrade your kernel? by Dthoma · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Forgive the stupid question, but would it be possible to replace my current kernel (2.4.18) with this older one (2.2.23) if I wanted to run Linux on an older machine (P200)? From what I can see here, 2.2 is less resource-intensive than 2.4.

    --

    Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".

    1. Re:Is it possible to downgrade your kernel? by joostje · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Jes, it's possible. Downgrading is just as simple as upgrading.

      However, if you're even asking if it's possible to downgrade, I doubt whether you are able to do eighter...

    2. Re:Is it possible to downgrade your kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was mean and unnecessary. Plus you said "Jes" instead of "Yes", which makes you look silly.

    3. Re:Is it possible to downgrade your kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mmmm...youre right

    4. Re:Is it possible to downgrade your kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's possible, provided your setup isn't dependent on things that need 2.4. (devfs would be a prime example.)

      Check out some newbie-oriented material on compiling a kernel.

    5. Re:Is it possible to downgrade your kernel? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I don't think that the 2.4 kernel is noticeably more resource-intensive than 2.2. In fact, it is quite a bit faster for typical users.

      Now a typical Linux distribution using the 2.4 kernel may be slower than one based on 2.2, but that is due to other factors like the C library, perhaps a newer version of KDE or whatever.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    6. Re:Is it possible to downgrade your kernel? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      due to other factors like the C library, perhaps a newer version of KDE or whatever.
      I don't know about libc, but your latter example was right on the money.

      It's not libraries that're slowing your average distro down... It's all the crap they shove into them by default. Especially with GNOME and KDE.

      Fact of the matter is, GNOME and KDE are bloated piles of shit, and distributors aren't helping by including the most bloated window manager, file manager, and panel applet setups imaginable, all as their defaults. Awfully Microsoftly of them if you ask me.

      What makes a Linux workstation so great is the potential for less bloat. Distributors are missing the point, just imitating Microsoft, and poorly at that. When people here on Slashdot say that X sucks, they mean that GNOME and KDE suck, and companies like Red Hat are only reinforcing that negative image of the X desktop.
  21. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I have a 486/25 laptop with 8 megs of RAM. I have tried several differant kernels from the 2.0 series, 2.2 series, and 2.4 series. Surprise! 2.4.18 was the 'fastest' kernel. It takes less than a second to start tcsh (for the first time) vs almost 2 seconds with a similarly configured 2.0 kernel. The performance improvements in newer kernels well balance out what little bloat has made it's way in to the core kernel.

  22. What can I still use with 2.2? by eggstasy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would like to see if I can set up a lighter system on my 486, so my mom can use the web and email. A GUI, compatibility with modern webpages and ease of use are a requirement.
    Presently I have windows 3.11 + Calmira (a very lightweight program that gives you a win95 interface under 3.x). I can run the 16-bit version of IE5 there just fine, though it takes a few seconds to boot.
    Can I do this with an older Linux kernel? I remember that 2 year ago your average distro ran very slowly on my recently deceased MMX pentium so I definitely cant use anything standar like that on my 486.
    I was thinking that given its infinite customizability an LFS setup could breathe new life into the ole bugger. Is it worth it to move to an older kernel and lose compatibility with modern apps?
    Wouldnt the apps be more resource-intensive than the kernel? I shudder at the thought of how slow mozilla would be on that box. Does opera require a 2.4 kernel? Does IceWM? Is there anything lighter than IceWM with a win95 look? Any general advice?

    1. Re:What can I still use with 2.2? by jensend · · Score: 5, Informative

      Very few programs actually require 2.4. IceWM will do just fine on 2.2, and I think Opera will as well (but don't quote me on Opera). A while back, I installed Slackware 8's 'zipslack' (based on a 2.2.2x kernel) on a EXT2 partition on my 486 laptop and added X and IceWM, and it ran moderately well. However, I would really recommend getting at least 32 mb of RAM if you want to run things on X.

    2. Re:What can I still use with 2.2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I would slap as much RAM into the thing as possible and build gentoo on it from stage 1. Building will take several days but gentoo is a 'ground-up' rather than a 'kitchen sink' philosophy. make sure to pick your optimization flags well, this will be very important. afterwards 'emerge' (install from source) Xfree86, WindowMaker, and Phoenix (a leaner mozilla derivative). I don't know if that will be decent, but it seems to work on my 200MHz machine alright. Another option would be to build it with Xfree and then run the windowmanager + applications on a faster machine and have the output go to the slow machine (that's what I do from my old machines). Only make it an X terminal if you have decent network and graphics cards, as those will be key to snappy performance.

    3. Re:What can I still use with 2.2? by JohnFluxx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You do know that if you have a better computer somewhere else in the house that you could just link them, then export the display?

      I currently have 3 old machines running kde3, mozilla, etc by actually running them on the main server, and exporting the display.

      See ltsp.org

    4. Re:What can I still use with 2.2? by 7-Vodka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      naw, if you run something like icewm or fluxbox you'll be fine with 32MB Try running kde tho and you'll be in agony.

      --

      Liberty.

    5. Re:What can I still use with 2.2? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      put as much ram as you can shove into that 486. if you can get 512 megs on that board, do it. then have mozilla load when you log into your session. there's nothing wrong with a 486 as long as the mobo supports lots of ram.

      ram is the key.

    6. Re:What can I still use with 2.2? by Alpha_Nerd · · Score: 1

      As fo web browsers, you could always use Dillo. It may be lacking in feutures(such as frames) but it is very lightweight. Only other option I would think that you have is useing Lynx. Or you could always pick up a Pentium 2 for $50 =)

    7. Re:What can I still use with 2.2? by ViGe · · Score: 1

      IceWM will do just fine on 2.2, and I think Opera will as well (but don't quote me on Opera).

      I can confirm that Opera does indeed work just fine with a 2.2 series kernel. As does practically everything.

      --
      It has to work - rfc1925
    8. Re:What can I still use with 2.2? by jmertic · · Score: 1

      I had setup an old WinBook FX (P166MMX, 48mb) using Red Hat 6.2, Blackbox, Opera, xmms, AbiWord, and Gaim, and it ran very well. I imagine IceWM would work just as well.

      Just about anything out there will work with 2.2.x kernels, although some X based utilities seem to want you to use XFree 4.x, while most older distros come with 3.3.x and older, and many older cards lack compatibility with the 4.x series. But all the major stuff seems to work fine.

  23. In other news, Slashdotters become.. by [cx] · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    more uninterested in kernel releases and thus find time to go outdoors! This may be flame bait but you can call me gasoline biatch.

  24. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2.2 *is* broke. More than 2.4, I mean.

  25. Re:Eh? by kylegordon · · Score: 2, Informative

    Just start kernel 'bf24' at the lilo prompt before the install, and you're off and running on 2.4

  26. Can you imagine? by bayankaran · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    A cluster of Alan Coxes. What about a cluster of kernels.

    --
    Tat Tvam Asi
  27. Re:my patch for linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Compilation of AC-patch.c:

    1:10: #include expects "FILENAME" or

    That is all. Thank you very much.

  28. Re:Eh? by Unregistered · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't want my hot-water heater running 2.4.11 now would I
    mine is running 2.5. I need that preeempt w/ XFS. The tub heats so much faster now.

  29. Re:Eh? by Kashif+Shaikh · · Score: 1

    Plus, a lot of people with mission-critical servers don't upgrade the kernels -- they have a "If it ain't broken, fix it." There's no reason to reboot your webserver raking in big bucks just so you're running the latest, shiniest, kernel. Of course, the people who ignore the big security issues and just don't want to ruin their 500+ day uptimes... are idiots. :)

    This is why a microkernel architecture is much better where the OS has well defined interfaces to other subsystems. If one subsystem is screwed up, you fix it without affecting other parts.

    Case in point: system-space v.s. user-space with syscall interface. When did you last see a user-space program broken because of a kernel update in Linux?

    This doesn't mean that a monolithic approach that Linux takes is bad; they can theoretically achieve the same feat as microkernels(as they have dynamic module support already). For example, take the NFS modules in 2.2 and throw them into 2.4.

  30. For those who ask why. by wray · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I am so sick of seeing the standard, "Why did we post this stupid story?" questions. Hey people read the FAQ The pertinent answer is copied below. Secondly, if you think it is just blah news, or unimportant, just skip the headlines -- surely you don't read everything in the newspaper, you read what YOU are interested in. The newspaper reports what it decides to.

    Why did you post story X?
    Slashdot is many things to many people. Some people think it's a Linux site. To others, it's a geek hangout. I've always worked very hard to make sure that Slashdot matches up with my interests and the interests of my authors. We think we're pretty typical Slashdot readers... but that does mean that occasionally one of us might post something that you think is inappropriate. You might be interested in my Omelette rant.

    Personally, I have a pet peeve when people post comments saying things like "That's not News For Nerds!" and "That's not Stuff that Matters!" Slashdot has been running for almost 5 years, and over that time, I have always been the final decision maker on what ends up on the homepage. It turns out that a lot of people agree with me: Linux, Legos, Penguins, Sci (both real and fiction). If you've been reading Slashdot, you know what the subjects commonly are, but we might deviate occasionally. It's just more fun that way. Variety Is The Spice Of Life and all that, right? We've been running Slashdot for a long time, and if we occasionally want to post something that someone doesn't think is right for Slashdot, well, we're the ones who get to make the call. It's the mix of stories that makes Slashdot the fun place that it is.

    Answered by: CmdrTaco
    Last Modified: 6/26/00

    --
    Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more cowbell!
    1. Re:For those who ask why. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am so sick of seeing the standard, "Why did we post this stupid story?" questions.

      If you're so sick of these questions, why on earth do you read them? Why not just skip over them?

      You don't feel the need to read everything in a newspaper, after all. You should only read the parts that interest you.

  31. In Soviet Russia.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The kernel compiles you!

  32. Re:safer computing: don't fix it if it ain't broke by roball · · Score: 1

    I had no problem with kernel 2.4.19 and Intel's 845G chipset.

    (snip from dmesg...)
    Linux version 2.4.19 (root@tux) (gcc version 2.95.3 20010315 (release)) #5 Fri Nov 29 19:45:26 PST 2002
    Kernel command line: BOOT_IMAGE=slack8-1 ro
    Initializing CPU#0
    Detected 2524.974 MHz processor.
    Console: colour VGA+ 80x25
    Calibrating delay loop... 5033.16 BogoMIPS
    Memory: 256852k/261588k available
    Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.53GHz stepping 07
    Linux agpgart interface v0.99 (c) Jeff Hartmann
    agpgart: Maximum main memory to use for agp memory: 203M
    agpgart: Detected Intel i845G chipset
    agpgart: AGP aperture is 128M @ 0xe8000000

    As far as your nForce2 board goes, you can
    download the linux drivers from nvidia.
    Linux nForce driver.

  33. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I happily run Debian with fvwm2, a 2.4 kernel, and even mozilla (gasp) on a Pentium.

    A 486 is definitely another story, though. I put OpenBSD on a 486SX a few years back, and it took maybe an hour to boot. I had to compile a minimalist kernel and turn off a few daemons just to stop it from swapping like mad on boot scripts and /bin/login. Obviously, I had to compile the kernel on a faster machine, because it would have taken years on the 486.

    On the topic of kernel size, I can't seem to get a Linux 2.4 bzImage in under 1.2MB. (Maybe 4MB uncompressed) 2.2, however, will happily churn out 700KB kernels. Good for keeping the swappage healthy on low memory machines.

  34. Re:Eh? by paradesign · · Score: 3, Funny

    only if its running on P4s!

    --
    I want 2D games back.
  35. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Low latency and kernel preemption could actually help a slow system...

  36. Slighty OT.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Intel's new large-format banner ad on OSDN says:
    Why say:
    posArr[0] = new Array();";
    posArr[0][0] = 0;";
    posArr[0][1] = 0;";
    posArr[1] = new Array();";
    posArr[1][1] = 3;";
    posArr[2] = new Array();";
    posArr[2][0] = 10;";
    posArr[2][1] = 0;";
    posArr[3] = new Array();";
    posArr[3][0] = 15;";
    posArr[3][1] = 3;";
    posArr[4] = new Array();"
    posArr[4][0] = 20;";
    posArr[4][1] = 0;";

    When you can say:
    posrArr[i] = [(i * 5, (i % 2) * 3];
    for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
    }

    I'm trying to imagine a language in which those statements are equivalent, or even meaningful. Note especially the lack of a second semicolon in posArr[4] = new Array();". The second fragment is completely inscrutable.

  37. And I love people like you by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

    Kindly take every 486 in working condition you can find and drop it off at my house. A dozen will do nicely thank you. Hell, I'll even take a few busted ones in the lot.

    And while you're here I've got a few NST's ( Nice Shiney Things) to sell you. Cheap Price, especial just for you, mi Amigo, orginal, from di ruins.

    Glad to know that stability is no longer a needed feature of servers.

    Sorry for biting the bait though. It wasn't even a very good troll.

    KFG

  38. It's not only possible to do that, but. . . by kfg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    it's still possible to buy or download older distros if you're starting from scratch. This makes sure that everything is coordinated on the software/library front.

    If you have no need for the latest Windows workalike GUI or certain hardware support it may even well be the "correct" way to go.

    Red Hat 5.2 is a real workhorse of a distro.

    On my old 486 VGA laptop I run mulinux which I belive still runs a 2.0x kernel. Boots from a single floppy and uses UMSDOS so it doesn't interfere with my Windows 3.11 install at all. If all you run is vi and some network tools this is really all you need.

    There's lots of work still to be gotten out of older kernels.

    KFG

  39. Re:Post? First? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    poop is good!

  40. Re:my patch for linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    #include expects "FILENAME" or

    FILENAME or what? You made the same mistake of not escaping < and > as &lt; and &gt; that grandparent made.

  41. In Soviet Russia..... by Jonny+290 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Old kernel uses YOU!

    --
    Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
  42. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2.2 is enough for everyone.

  43. Re:In Fascist USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm European; what does it say about you that my English is better than yours?

    Well perhaps it reflects a better educational standard in your country, but maybe it reflects nothing more than that fact that he (or she) is less well educated (or perhaps even intelligent) than you. You could be the Professor of English at Goteburg University and he could be a 14 year old geek from Alabama, dosen't really say much about your respective countries.

    ...unemployment is about 2/3 of the US figure

    OK, granted, you win that one.

    public offices and referenda are decided directly by majority vote

    And? Is that necessarily a good thing? Every healthy democracy requires some protection from the will of the majority, or should I say some way to protect individuals against the will of the majority. If your country is anything more than an ochlocracy it must too.

    >>and moral state

    Yes, well an American attacking the 'moral state' of other societies is a just bit too cute, isn't it.

  44. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    There is no choice before us. Either we must Succeed in providing the
    rational coordination of impulses and guts, or for centuries civilization
    will sink into a mere welter of minor excitements. We must provide a
    Great Age or see the collapse of the upward striving of the human race.
    -- Alfred North Whitehead

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...