Slashdot Mirror
Kernel 2.2 - It Lives!
Build6 writes "For those of us still using 2.2 (how's that for "conservatism" eh?) -- 2.2.24 is out (and has been since last week) - see kernel.org for downloads. I see networking code tweaks, but no changelog. Time to give our old RH 6.2 machines one last kernel-recompile before Red Hat's end-of-life date arrives for 6.2? :-) What I'd like to know is - who else (besides me) out there still has machines running 2.2 and intends to keep it that way?"
Although Linux 2.2 may eventually become relatively obscure, I wouldn't anticipate its disappearance. It will almost certainly remain a viable contender for certain embedded and esoteric applications.
Do you like German cars?
It works.
I ran a firewall off of my 2.2.23 box all set up to be secure to the outside and provide a fileserver/print server to the inside as well as being a DSL and dial-up router.
Why would I upgrade and possibly break something?
It does not need X, it is a PII-400, and it does not do anything that is so intensive it needs 2.4
Long live 2.2
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
There's some nice things in 2.4, certainly (e.g. USB support that works). My home machines and laptop run it. But many of the servers I admin have been humming along fine with the 2.2 tree for quite some time, so I see very little reason to upgrade (indeed, with the hairiness in the 2.4 tree's virtual memory handling, I can several reasons NOT to upgrade beyond just change management). (Some will say that you should upgrade to 2.4 for the new firewalling features, but I prefer to put firewalling onto a dedicated openbsd machine or an appliance like a netscreen so the issue is moot for me.)
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Me too - I've got 2.2 running a firewall on a 100MHz Pentium box, and the box does exactly what it's supposed to do, all the time, and has only ever been rebooted in the last 4 years when there's been blackouts in my area.
A 2.4 box would be "cooler", and would probably even have some extra capabilities that I might find useful, but the simple rule is that you don't change something that works perfectly.
Better yet, why would you upgrade if 2.2 does everything you need? Any security patches will be back-ported, and that's the only time you really need to upgrade your kernel so long as it does everything you need already. For example, my bridge/firewall machine (P200MMX) is running a 2.2 kernel, and with the 2.4 bridging code backport, it works perfectly fine. I have absolutely no desire to spend a day with my firewall machine down while I upgrade all of the kernel dependencies, configure and build a 2.4 kernel, rewrite my firewall scripts for iptables (yeah, I know you can use the old ipchains interface with 2.4, but if you're going to do the upgrade, do the upgrade), and then work out all the gremlins from running "new" code.
Desktops are different, because nobody cares if you have downtime with them. Servers on the other hand can cause pain when they're down, and even for a personal server the downtime is not worth the upgrade. You gain nothing, and lose quite a bit of time.
Eventually, I'll decomission the P200 and bring the celeryonion 433 up as my bridge/firewall machine, but that's going to be timed with a move (when the machines will have to be down anyway, and it'll be a week or two before the new place has internet access). Doing it before then is pointless.
If I had to bet my life on it I'd still use 2.2 over 2.4. To say the 2.4 series has had some rough spots is an understatment. 2.4.0 through something like 2.4.5 was less then impressive and at 2.4.10 Linux replaced the VM. It hasn't exactly been smooth sailing. I suppose by 2.4.24 I'll have that same warm feeling I do for 2.2 but so far that hasn't happened.
FreeBSD:
/ports/whatever
> cd
> make all install clean
Just as easy as downloading and running setup.exe, wouldn't you say?
I hear Debian has something similar, though I haven't used it myself.
Not that I'm arguing with you, some people will find things like that "too hard", just because it's different. *shrug*
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Go on.... Why "should" people upgrade their kernel? What are "the benefits of upgrading"? (to the average K-Mart buying linux user),
Alex
> Just as easy as downloading and running setup.exe, wouldn't you say?
/ports/ and make all install clean. Then claim that's just as easy as double-clicking on a "setup" icon?
Non-geeks most certainly wouldn't.
When yer mum calls you regarding her shpanky new FreeBSD box and the fact that "some book... or library.. that's it.." needs upgrading are you going to tell her to fire up an xterm, cd into
You've never done tech support right?
Cheers
Stor
"Yeah well there's a lot of stuff that should be, but isn't"
There seems to be an assumption that we are only talking about workstations/servers when it comes to if the 2.0 or 2.2 kernel is still in use. The reality is that the Linux kernel is in use on embedded devices and it is not always desirable to try to be bleeding edge with such devices. Once you get a 2.0 or 2.2 kernel to fit withen the design limitations of an embedded device, upgrading may mean rethinking the hardware and starting from scratch. For example, I would be willing to bet that the majority of Agenda Computing/VR3 devices will never be upgraded to version 2.4 of the kernel.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
No kiddin. My headless P100 MP3 player/server has been 2.2.19 since that kernel was released and it's never gone down (except for having to move the machine a few times).
It's behind my 2.4.20 firewall, so I'm not too concerned about security updates or patches on the old box.
So, in the end, a 2.4 upgrade would provide nothing, and waste a day of my time. There's your reason.
Wrong. Debain applies a few patches to their kernels as well. While not as many as the level of patches Redhat et al apply, they still apply some. Looking at the README.Debian included with 2.4.20, the big ones I can see are the bigmem patch, cramfs support, NFS performance tweaks, and a few dozen other patches.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Another good question is why upgrade?
2.2 is a good system and has served many of us well. Linux 2.4 really only became stable and available in 2002. For people who don't live on the bleeding edge (and there is a reason it is called "bleeding"), 2.4 is just starting to be deployed. When a server runs well, upgrading it is often just a pain. I am guessing that 2.6 will come out in 2004, be stable and available in 2005 and many servers will only start migrating to it in 2006 and on slashdot some simmiliar story will be posted and somebody (maybe you) will post a simmiliar comment/question.
I miss the Karma Whores.
Box du jour syndrome. Due to peculiarities in the particular hardware and bios and in the particular detection of that hardware, things work or not with no easily discernable rhyme or reason. At one point I had two versions of RedHat and two computers. One version would install on one computer and not the other. The other version would install on the other computer but not the first.
One advantage of old versions is that you can get something usable running without much effort or knowledge.
"It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
I've felt the way you do for a long time. I've usually got the latest dev kernel on my laptop because of its requirement of a recent ACPI patch (it's one of those legacy-free Toshibas) to get sound and its NVIDIA video card (these two don't go together well), but for every other system I have I don't touch the kernel if I can get away with it.
In this day and age, when most common PC hardware, and certainly any PC hardware worth anything (ie. not the aforementioned laptop), is well-supported under Linux, why do people feel compelled to have the latest kernel? I compile all my kernels on my Athlon XP build machine and even when the compiles are pretty fast (compared to my old 486 box that I first used Linux on) it's not exactly *fun*.
I consider myself a pretty big geek, being thoroughly integrated into the Slashdot hive mind and all. I'm on top of CVS gaim, xine/totem, Mozilla, and GNOME (hoping it won't suck eventually) because they seem to become noticeably better by the day. But the kernel? Could someone please explain why?
Game... blouses.
Developers of software always think they are close but usually software gets delayed much longer than expected. "Linus and gang" wanted the 2.5 series to be done in something like 9 months. When I was reading that, I thought the idea was rediculous. 2.5 was started 11/2001 and it is now 3/2003. A two year development cycle is really as fast as can be expected in such a sophisticated system (if fundamental changes are made) and a three year cycle (like the time given to 2.4) is probably even better. Nobody really needs a new kernel sooner (or they are using the wrong tool for the job) and the time could be used to make the new system better. Distibutions, developers and users should spend more time USING an OS than UPGRADING it. I would be shocked if Linus was actually able to release 2.6 this year and servers should not start deploying it for another year after that.
I miss the Karma Whores.
Maybe that new USB digital camera they bought is not supported by Linux 2.2? Improved hardware support is the only tangible reason (to a Joe Kmart user).
cpeterso
"People" should upgrade their installed software as their distribution vendor tests and certifies it as stable and secure (to the best of their knowledge) and released it to the "stable" branch. Else, they should upgrade as new functionality, drivers, driver bases, etc. is desired (GigE, ACPI/APM enhancements, etc.)
People who run Linux as a hobby "should" upgrade as they feel neccesary, but they'll probably have atleast one workstation on the bleeding edge anyways, so they're a moot point.
People who run servers, casually or professionally, "should" track updates and understand their impact on the remainder of their systems. Their professional, corporate, mission-critical, or otherwise important (generally in the context of "to paying customers", "management" or "other employees") "should" be updated on a semi-regular basis as neccesitated by (potentual/actual) stability or security issues, and after a sufficient testbed period and impact analysis.
In general, an upgrade as major as a kernel (major revision) should be taken with all due consideration. Mostly I'd reccomend a distribution version upgrade (ie; an all-encompassing upgrade procedure that will account for the C library and compiler, all system libraries, shells, and related utilities, as well as the userland).
If an "average K-Mart buying linux user"{sic} wishes to keep their computer's performance and features up to par with what's currently available, they should keep their packages, including their kernel, up to date. With modern GUI-based upgrade procedures as simple as scan, select, apply, ignore, the kernel is just another package, and pre-compiled binary kernels will often come with all the requisite modules and configure itself to become bootable. Minimal input is required by the user, except for perhaps "This upgrade didn't work, I'll boot the previous option and revert."
I know that my workstations are noticeably more responsive since upgrading to 2.4, and I make extensive use of much of the added/enhanced functionality. However, if what you're running works for you, does the job, is stable and secure, and still being maintained (which kernels as far back as 2.0.x still are), there's no definite reason to upgrade. If it ain't broke, and all that. That's the very same reason I still service a lot of Windows'98(SE) customers, and the very reason I'll often reccomend that they stick right where they are. To Linux, FreeBSD, etc. users I'll offer the same advise. Anyone doing otherwise is offering a disservice.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Like I said, I was on that kernel upgrade treadmill, and I think it's a bit of an addiction. You want the bragging rights to say that you're running whatever the latest and greatest version of the kernel happens to be. For most people, it's about showing off and making themselves feel superior because they're running the latest stuff. I think it goes the same for the rest of the stuff you mentioned as well. Once those projects get to the "good enough" point, what do you gain by using the CVS nightly drop vs. a released version? Why not Mozilla 1.1 (or whatever Mozilla is at now) rather than CVS? I used to do the same thing with Microsoft stuff. I ran various betas of Internet Explorer (IE4, IE5, IE6), and even had various RC releases (all legally acquired) of XP and Win2K (even back before Win2K was Win2K). Now, though, I'd rather get my work done instead of futzing with my system.
I dual boot 2.2 and 2.4 kernels. My Fuji FinePix digital camera and IBM USB keyboard appear to not interface with kernels in the 2.2 series. (I'm the only person I know to run dual keyboards.) However, I bought a VMWare 2.x license and don't want to shell out $300 for the latest VMWare version until there's a version that supports the Linux 2.6 kernels. I've so far resisted the temptation to grab a VMWare keygen or cracked version.
Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.