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.
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...
Surprise: The 2.0 kernels are also still being maintained.
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
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.
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
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".
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.
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?
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.
I happily run Debian with fvwm2, a 2.4 kernel, and even mozilla (gasp) on a Pentium.
/bin/login. Obviously, I had to compile the kernel on a faster machine, because it would have taken years on the 486.
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
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.
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
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.
May we never see th