Slashdot Mirror
How To Upgrade Linux To The 2.6 Kernel
An anonymous reader writes "Here's a good computer project for the long labor-day weekend. KernelTrap has posted a howto detailing eight steps to upgrade your GNU/Linux OS from the 2.4 stable kernel to the 2.6.0-test development kernel. Complete with screen shots, the end result sounds to be well worth the effort." Since chances are most people will be upgrading anyway once 2.6 is deemed release-worthy, it's always worth learning the upgrade procedure well.
Hey, I love the idea of Linux as much as the next guy...
However, you have to see the whole idea of needing a step-by-step upgrade guide with screen shots, etc is exactly why Bill still owns huge percentages of the market. Windows upgrades: Insert CD.
The one thing not mentioned in the article, and the one thing that has me nervous about trying 2.6-test is the changes to alsa. With 2.6, alsa is built into the kernel, so presumably this makes it easier to set up in the first place. But I already have alsa set up perfectly in 2.4, complete with OSS emulation and artsd sound mixing, so that all my apps play nice and just work. How much deconfiguring and reconfiguring am I going to have to do if I'm going to be jumping back and forth between 2.4 and a possibly unstable 2.6? Especially since I have the rather finicky via82xx driver. I'm really keen to try out 2.6, but not if I end up breaking sound in the process.
I run Debian stable so I'll have to wait until the next perihelic opposition of Earth and Mars before being able to apt-get a 2.6 kernel image.
I totally agree, many people who want to use Linux just can't do it at this point. It's not their fault, Linux just isn't ready to be used in the home by the average user.
However, I do use Linux on my desktop every day, and I'm very happy with it. (However I tend to stick to BSDs for most servers) It's taken me about 5 years of using it off and on (started in 97 or 98) to get comfortable with it as a desktop system. And earlier year I finally removed Windows completely from all of my systems.
Linux can be used as a desktop system right now. It's just a question of "do you have the time to learn it?" For almost everyone right now the answer is no. There's so many things you don't realize you need to know to be able to manage a computer. Most of us take it for granted on Windows because we have been exposed to it for so long that we don't realize how much we had to learn to be able to manage it.
Right now, Linux will work as a desktop. The problem is maintenance. If they don't have to worry about maintenance (ie someone else is managing it for them), I have no doubts that someone could sit down and use the computer just as easy as they could in Windows. The problem is if they want to install new programs/hardware or otherwise change the system configuration. This is where it requires more than just a basic knowledge and where most people give up and say Windows is easier--because they already know how these changes would be done on Windows, but don't yet know how to do it in Linux. It's also much harder to learn how to do it in Linux because you can't usually just ask the local "computer guy" because most of the "computer guys" know just as much about Linux as you do. As more and more people start using Linux, it will become easier to learn, so more people will use Linux, and it will be easier to learn, ad infinitum.
Those are my thoughts on the subject anyway.
The Tao says: the perfect piece of paper is unmarked by pen; the perfect flower is unpruned by shears; the perfect operating system is untouched from its default installation.
I've had to support, debug, fix, and otherwise un-screw-up many computers in my time. Inevitably, the closer a system is to what everybody else is using, the more likely it is that any problems with it will have been seen and solved countless times before.
That's why the idea of countless legions of users out there each recompiling his own kernel just makes my blood run cold. This is the twenty-first century, peoples! Why is it necessary for anyone other than a kernel developer to compile the kernel sources? Why haven't all the optional pieces been broken out into modules yet?
No no, if you really want an upgrade you should go out and pay $199.95 for Linux 2003 SE, then, as long as you have a valid installation of a previous Linux product, you can upgrade to fully enjoy your digital convergence lifestyle!
Wah!
There are plenty of people who use it effectively. They just don't waste their time posting to slashdot to brag about it. It's complainers that make the most noise.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Doesn't it seem that a lengthy eight-step process for an OS upgrade could be one of linux's major pitfalls when it comes to targeting new users?
I'm not complaining, but shouldn't this be easier if linux is ever going to make it into the realm of familiarity?
ôó
Yeah, cos configuring a FreeBSD kernel is so much easier than it is in Linux. I mean just cp GENERIC MYKERNEL then vi MYKERNEL for the next four hours, all the while looking up what everything means. Yeah, that's so much easier than pressing F2 on a make menuconfig.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
In a way I have to agree... While there is some kind of an assumption made when someone embarks on a kernel recompile, it shouldn't be an assumption that the individual is a professional developer. On the other hand, you shouldn't be asking what a makefile is if you're recompiling. There is, however, a happy medium.
Linus indicated that he wanted more people testing the kernel... Unfortunately, that means venturing out beyond the shadow of kernel developers. Even if you know how to program, the kernel is no simple playground. I tried to get 2.6test01 working for quite a while before giving up - in fact this was the first article which seemed to make it obvious what needed to be done. I admit to not being a hardcore, but it should have been easier.
Linux is a fantastic world to be in, but it could be a bit more friendly not only to newbies, but also power users. I would suggest that many power users would rather test functionality that their ability to locate obscure libraries. Haven't tried since then, but hopefully the build has become more stable.
All that being said, I'm thankful to have it in front of me, and will happily use my 2.4 kernel until I can figure out 2.6.