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 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.
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.
[este]
All of us are still using 2.2 kernels, whether we like it or not.
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
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)
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
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.
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.
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
samrolken
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).
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.
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..
"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.