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.

51 of 129 comments (clear)

  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. 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......

  3. 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 Isle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Surprise: The 2.0 kernels are also still being maintained.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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?
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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
    9. 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.

    10. 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!
    11. 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)
  4. 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.
  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.
  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: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.

  8. 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
  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 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: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?

  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 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 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/
  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. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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 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
    2. 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
  18. 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 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
  19. 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 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

    3. 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.

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 Re:2.2 is obsolete!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

    Yeah, and who cares about stability anyway?

  21. 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.
  22. 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

  23. 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!
  24. 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/
  25. Re:Eh? by paradesign · · Score: 3, Funny

    only if its running on P4s!

    --
    I want 2D games back.
  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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...
  29. 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.