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?"

Comments

Kernel Series 2.2

[Scoria]

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.

Re:Kernel Series 2.2

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it stable enough for prime-time yet? I'm not "upgrading" my 2.0 boxes until I'm sure it is.

Did anyone ever fix the uptime rollover thing? That's what I'm really waiting for. I'm sick of rebooting every year and a half.

Re:Kernel Series 2.2

[rmadmin]

I'm still running a 2.0 kernel on a production Slackware 2.3 machine. The reason for that is that I'm afriad of breaking the antique software package on the system by upgrading, but it seems I will have to do something soon since OpenSSH will no longer compile on the machine, and I don't feel like leaving it open to the world.

Re:Kernel Series 2.2

[edbarrett]

LEAF Bering. It rocks. seriously. Shoreline firewall config, Free S/WAN support, and more!

I'm not trying to knock you, I'm just plugging a cool product (although I'm just a user, myself).

Why 2.2?

[York the Mysterious]

This is a real question not flame bait. Why would you keep 2.2? What is there in 2.4 that makes it so bad? It seems like it's pretty mature now so what's wrong with it?

-Tim

Re:Why 2.2?

[Osty]

This is a real question not flame bait. Why would you keep 2.2? What is there in 2.4 that makes it so bad? It seems like it's pretty mature now so what's wrong with it?

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.

Several production servers

[benevold]

Although we are slowly phasing them out we are running quite a few machines, mostly redhat. Because of they are critical systems they have yet to be upgraded. There's one debian box that's been up for over 500 days and the kernel wasn't upgraded for a while before that! For some reason it seems to be the most stable box we have.

Why?

[este]

I get asked all the time.

I've still got 2.2 on my laptop, and really, I'm happy. I don't use it for much more than mobile internet access, and as tightly compiled as I have it, I don't feel a need to go through and upgrade. Just that much more work for an overall unimportant change, a least in this situation.

Of course, my desktop has 2.4. :-)

PS2 Linux users

[Vardamir]

All of us are still using 2.2 kernels, whether we like it or not.

Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Simple

[AchilleTalon]

I still have my 486 with 16MB memory running a firewall/DSL router. It is now near 10 years old and still running. This machine is never powered-off, unless there is a black-out. The only problem I had was with the CPU fan I replaced many years ago and the power-supply fan I replaced about two years ago.

Linux Kernel 2.2.X has been continuously updated on this machine without a glitch.

This machine has seen pre-1.0 kernels and was my first PC. I just don't remember the very early Linux distributions I tested on this machine. For sure, Slackware was installed on it at some point in its life.

Re:Simple

[pheared]

If you run a firewall, all the more reason to upgrade to 2.4. Netfilter is far superior to ipchains, in my opinion.

Of course, you may not currently need stateful inspection, but you don't even have the option with 2.2. If you come to a point where you do, you're out of luck. (unless there is a current reliable backport out there, which is possible)

Linux's new target market

[batobin]

I'd say with everything I'm reading about Linux's new target market, a lot of people will leave their kernels. Why? Because they either don't know how to upgrade, or more likely, are not educated on the benefits of upgrading.

Honestly, with the advent of Linux being sold at K-Mart, used in schools, and wielded by mouse-clicking Grandma's, there are bound to be lots of people who don't know they should upgrade their kernels. I personally think marketing Linux to these markets is important, but an equal amount of importance should be recognized in educating these new users in the basics of maintaining these systems.

Because what good is the open source movement if the end user doesn't know how to benefit from our work?

Re:Linux's new target market

[Osty]

more likely, are not educated on the benefits of upgrading.

And those benefits would be ...? I was on the kernel upgrade treadmill for years, getting new versions as they were released, upgrading to 2.2 with the very first version, etc. It gained me very little. I reached a point where staying on top of kernel upgrades was more pain than it was worth, and stopped. Now I only upgrade if I need some new feature, better support for an existing feature, or for security reasons. Aside from security patches (which I would hope all of the "Windows Update"-ish tools would handle for these users already), 99.95% of all Linux users have no reason to upgrade their kernel, so long as they're using a sufficiently modern one to begin with. Why, then, is it such a bad thing that these users don't know how to upgrade their kernel? If anything, I'd say it's a testament to Linux that users running it can get by without ever having to touch the kernel (aside from maybe loading a module or two when they get new hardware, though even that could/should be automated).

Re:Linux's new target market

[Otter]

Not that there are vast numbers of Linux-using grandmothers in reality, anyway, but I'd propose that the overwhelming majority of desktop users, and probably a lot of server admins should be cautious in upgrading.

Distributions provide well-tested, patched kernels. Compulsively updating kernels is a fine hobby if it makes you happy, but unless there's a new feature you need, the potential for breaking something exceeds any practical benefit. The experience of the 2.4 series, where half the kernels substantially degraded performance because of some new half-assed VM only underscores that lesson.

No, if you don't know why you need to upgrade your kernel, you almost certainly don't.

Re:Linux's new target market

[Blkdeath]

Go on.... Why "should" people upgrade their kernel? What are "the benefits of upgrading"? (to the average K-Mart buying linux user),

"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.

Changelog

[SexyTr0llGal]

Found the changelog here. It reads:

Linux 2.2.24-rc5

* Fix n_hdlc globals pollution (Paul Fulghum)
* Fix initialisation of sk->sleep (Holger Smolinksi)
* Handle init_ethdev returning null in tulip (Neale Banks)
* Backport rtc wildcard fix to 2.2 (Paul Gortmaker)
* Correct wireless config help (Neale Banks)
* Fix smc9194 build (me)

why 2.2? simple answer

[StandardDeviant]

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.)

My main reason for keeping 2.2 around...

[samrolken]

I don't really have a choice. It's well-known that the 2.4 kernels can't compile properly for the 32-bit sparc architecture. http://www.rocklinux.org/mailing-list/rock-ports/2 001-7/5.html -- Sam Kennedy

Need 2.2 for microsecond packet timing.

[Chmarr]

I've written a little application around libpcap that needs the microsecond resolution for packet arrival times. 2.2 has that. 2.4 only gives me 10 millisecond resolution.

torn

[awing0]

I don't know, I'm always torn between losing my uptime and installing the latest kernel. Its a lose/lose situation. If slashdot wouldn't announce the new 2.2 kernel I could just go on believing I had the latest code and it wouldn't bother me. But now that I know there's a new kernel, I'll have to compile it and bear the pain of losing my (not much, but around 130 days now) uptime. Thanks again for dragging me out of my sheltered update life.

Embedded devices

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:why 2.2? simple answer

[GRH]

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.

On the flip side of the coin..

[XaXXon]

I just upgraded to 2.5.64 with Linus's patch ( mentioned yesterday) merged in.

I am running Gentoo and I first installed the gentoo-optimized 2.4.20 kernel. When I read the article yesterday I decided to make the jump to 2.5.64 + patch. Holy wow, Batman.

I'm running Gentoo under VMware on a dual 2.2 GHz Xeon (only 1 processor makes it through to the virtual machine, though). After figuring out that I needed new modutils, I had everything up and running. I started up a kernel compile with make -j 2 to really try and saturate the system, and moved the mouse around. The mouse was silky smooth, KDE quickly and properly recognized mouse-overs and everything was just so nice. I then booted back to 2.4.20 and ran the same test. Oh the pain! The mouse was chunky, KDE didn't even try and do mouseover animations.. it was horrible. I've switched grub to default to the 2.5 kernel and I'm not going back.

That said, this is a play machine and does nothing important. So if it crashes more often (no crashes yet), then it doesn't really bother me..

Re:On the flip side of the coin..

[ameoba]

If you've got dual 2.2G Xeons for your 'play machine', what's your main box look like?

Don't upgrade to 2.4!

[Arandir]

Don't upgrade to 2.4! If you do, then Linux will never beat FreeBSD in the uptime department!