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.
I followed all the steps, then this is what happened:
-bash-2.05b$ uname -a
Darwin Bruce 7.0.0b1 Darwin Kernel Version 7.0.0b1: Tue Jul 29 15:27:33 PDT 2003; root:xnu/xnu-470.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
I'm really confused, any ideas?
Is this a different numbering scheme?
"Since chances are most people will be upgrading anyway once 2.6 is deemed release-worthy,"
:) I've been using it ever since the first -test was released, patched it with Andrew Morton his -mm and it's fast and solid for me!
IMHO it already is
If you haven't tried it out already, go download -test4 now! Even if it's just to see if all your hardware works, if you report any problems now you don't have to deal with them when 2.6.0 is officially "stable".
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
Can't I just download one file, double-click on it to install, and re-boot the computer?
... don't forget to buy your license from SCO before using the kernel.
The IT section color scheme sucks.
Oh, of course there's also the "Give up obscene amounts of cash" and "Tolerate large numbers of security holes"
Anyone know why they still require gcc 2.95? Or is this a minimum? Will it compile and run with gcc 3.3.x without problems? I was under the impression they tried to target the current stable version of gcc on each new major release.
As noted in the article, the build output is much cleaner (simple status lines for each section/module being built, not the whole gcc cmdline), the make options are now fully documented (with make help), and make is simplified down to `make all' and `make install'/`make modules_install'.
I'm not particularly fond of the new make xconfig, but didn't give it much of a chance. I went with `make menuconfig' and ncurses instead.
Performance is noticably improved. Not just "some people told me it's better and well, maybe it is a little", but actual tangible improvements. Even typing into xterms seems faster. (I did enable the preemptible option, but this seems even better than when I did it with the old patch to 2.4.)
This is the most pleased I've been with a new kernel in ~6 years of using Linux. Highly recommended!
#19845
....going out and enjoying the shiny day with your friends, maybe doing some sport etc, instead of crawling down to the basement and recompiling kernels for several hours???? /. you freak!!!!!;o))))))
You're officialy banned from visiting
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
Bollocks, those steps are only intended for those who want to try the BETA kernel. End users will just use whatever kernel is provided by their distribution, and won't have to deal with any of that shit.
Don't forget that this is a lowest common denominator tutorial. The only people who will upgrade this way are hard-core geeks. Debian users will simply use apt to grab a package containing the latest kernel, RedHat users will use up2date to do the same thing. Of course the easiest way of upgrading will probably be to pop a RedHat 10 (or whatever) CD in your drive and click on the upgrade button...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Are traditional pseudoterminals still supported or the Unix98 scheme the only thing available? I built
the kernel successfully, but found that xterm and
rxvt didn't work because they didn't have pty's.
Really? The two nicest desktop operating systems I've used are MacOS X and BeOS. OS X is based on the mach microkernel, while BeOS has its own microkernel. And before you say BeOS is dead, take a look at the new version (still in private beta).
Microkernels are still very much alive. They don't give quite the performance of macrokernels, but they have a number of advantages (like not needing a reboot to replace large portions of the kernel, and drivers not being able to crash the kernel). With current system speeds, the flexibility of a microkernel is well worth the speed trade-off, on the desktop at least. On a server / workstation I would probably still choose a macrokernel.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Perhaps it is release-worthy to those on an ix86 platform, but I had to modify include/smp.h to get it to compile on sparc, moving #include into the #ifndef __ASSEMBLER__ section to avoid the redefinition of ALIGN that caused compiling to fail.
The security system should be stronger integrated into the kernel. Yes there is PAM these days, but a real secure system will have authentification and verification added at kernel level to make it trust-worthy and tamper-proof.
Security should be enforced in the kernel but should not be put in the kernel. Here's what I mean, I do not want a kernel that performs authentication, but when authenticated it should stick it to it. I believe that is how the kernel works, and its much better than putting "PAM", SASL or Kerberos or Login into the kernel. I don't even think SELinux even tries to do authentication in the kernel.
Grid access. Given the exciting new development of grid computing,
Grid computing has been around since the 60's. I actually don't see where the kernel can use grid computing (meanwhile you can do what we do and use openMosix to get many of the same benefits). All you really need to impliment grid computing is SSH, RSH or even telnet and none of those things are really kernel worthy either.
Given to above grid access all journaled file system should be made grid aware and supporting distributed storaging.
Check out NFS, then AFS, then CODA and finally intermezzo depending on the level of local caching you wish for your grid.
More modular kernel design. While device drivers can be loaded at run-time, a fully modular kernel design is still missing. Yes, the micro-kernel is quite dead, but a decent modular design can be quite powerful as well-used system like Windows NT and successors show.
You mean, reboot every IP change NT? How about reboot every program install XP? The modularity in NT is not very good at all. XP is much better, but still not the keen level that Linux achieved back in 1996.
While Linus's opinion on the matter is well known, Microkernels are far from dead. It's just that Mach gave them a bad name. Mach was too bloated and too slow, while the new breed of microkernels have unbelievably fast IPC primitives and therefore the potential to revolutionize the way operating systems are built. Mach sucks != Microkernels suck.
See, for example, the L4 project.
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've been trying -test1 and -test4 on my desktop and laptop for some time now. It is perhaps hard to believe, but the new kernel is very much _noticeable_ on the desktop. How? Well, for instance, you can 'feel' it when moving the mouse and watching the pointer on your screen. The lag between the physical movement and the mouse pointer has become almost unnoticeably small, even when apps are hogging CPU. Another nice touch is that your desktop keeps this responsiveness with large processes (say, an 'emerge mozilla') running in the background. With 2.4, terminals would be a bit slow at starting and such, but that is all gone now. It is also very pleasant that ALSA is now in the kernel. It saves lots of hassle compared to 2.4, where you had to compile the modules separately. Low latency audio performance should be less of a black art too with this kernel.
Cons:
Some defaults were funny at first (like missing console drivers, etc.) and I've noticed the mouse being a little jumpy some times. Nothing big so far.
All things considered: great kernel! Thanks guys.
Yes, I've seen this problem a lot. People are comparing the ease of use of Windows to the ease of use of Gentoo or similar, in which case Windows is a whole lot easier (don't get me wrong, I love Gentoo). If you're going to compare the ease of use of Windows with linux, compare it with a distro that's designed for ease of use, like Mandrake.
Yeah that doesn't need documenting.
Good example.
Bush and Blair ate my sig!
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 have been useing the mm patch on every 2.6 kernel since test1. I have installed it on 3 machines (my desktop, my friends desktop and my laptop). It has been running rock solid for me. The sound quality is great due to the alsa integration, ACPI is working great on my laptop. Though some people complained about ACPI causing the kernel to crash on boot with test 4 I havn't encountered this with test 4 mm sources. Although I wouldn't put it on a server just yet it is definately the best desktop kernel release yet
History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
You can find Redhat 9 rpms of the 2.6-test series at http://people.redhat.com/arjanv/2.5/RPMS.kernel/. There are also rpms for all the necessary packages that the 2.6 kernel requires. I've tried out 2.6test4 on my machine and it works quite well.
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.
Check the readme for the apt or yum lines to add to your configs.
I used apt4rpm to easily install 2.6pre4 yesterday.
mr.
You can help the kernel developers immensely by testing your kernel methodically and thoroughly rather than just casually trying it out.
It's also important for you to test new kernels, even stable kernels, before putting them to use on a production machine. Even if they work well for everybody else, you may be blessed to discover your very own bug.
Also realize that because Linus can issue a new kernel anytime he feels like it, there is no particular requirement that a kenel be tested before its released. It's happened a number of times that "stable" kernels have been released that have turned out to be quite broken, especially on non-x86 architectures.
So please read, enjoy, and put to good use:
-
Why We Should All Test the New Linux Kernel
-
Using Test Suites to Validate the Linux Kernel
The OSDL kindly prepared Japanese translations but for some reason have taken them offline. I have copies though and will try to post them sometime soon.There are other articles on web application quality and C++ programming, with more to come. So far they are all under the GNU Free Documentation License.
I am actively seeking more translations if you want to help out.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
Anyone else getting timeouts for kernel.org? Have we slashdotted linux?
)
You mean the windows kernel is easier to recompile?
Well actually 'make xconfig' uses the Qt libraries. So 'make xconfig' is just as much KDE as 'make gconfig' is Gnome.
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?
This seems to be yet another in the growing collection of mostly useless 2.6 "migration guides". It doesn't mention any of the common gotchas with configuration, its recommendation for invoking the build process is wrong, etc, etc.
A much better guide is Dave Jones's Post Halloween 2.5 document, which, although very slightly dated, does a much better job explaining how and why things have changed in 2.6 and their impact when upgrading from 2.4.
How in the world is posiible, that no KDE user has been whining yet that there's no make kconfig
They did not whine, because "make xconfig" == "make kconfig" ;-)
You can save space. Or you can save time. Don't ever count on saving both at once. -- First Law of Algorithmic Analisys
However, that doesn't mean we can't all contribute a little for these architectures. The PC has SPARC and ARM emulators, for example, which are about as close to the real thing as you're likely to get.
Even if only a handful of Slashdot readers who don't normally do kernel work just grab an emulator, cross-compile 2.6 for it, and see what breaks -- hey, it might make all the difference between a working 2.6 and another Brown Paper Bag release, for those architectures.
"Why go to all the effort? It sounds hard work!"
It really isn't. Arcem is pretty much complete, and even comes with a Linux image. As I'm suggesting a cross-compile, you don't have to worry about 90% of the "requirements". The filesystem tool is about all you absolutely need to update on the Arcem image.
"What do I get out of it? I don't even use this processor!"
Finding a single bug - even a single mis-placed #ifdef, as in the SPARC architecture, mentioned elsewhere - and getting a fix submitted, would earn you a place in the CREDITS file. You get to add the emulated architecture to your resume (if it's fashionable, such as the PPC64, SPARC64 or IX64). You also get "bragging rights" as an OS kernel developer.
That's not bad personal compensation for the effort needed. Linux itself gains, by getting more extensive testing on lesser-used architectures, where it has a good chance of cornering the market.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
There are tons upon tons of "other" stuff that goes into upgrading the kernel.
For example, no official nVidia drivers for the 2.6 kernel yet. It's patch city for you, good luck.
No VMware modules either. Again, good luck.
Not that it can't be done, but it takes a whole lot of time and your system will be very fragile.
Personally, I'm waiting till the new kernel is supported by the software I use. I actually use my Linux system for real work so I can't have much down time.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
I've been modded down for saying this before, but screw it....
What is so frigging hard for you people about installing Linux?
I've installed 5 different distros on about 10 computers. Gentoo and Debian gave me grief; there's no point pretending they didn't. But I wouldn't expect someone looking for a painless installation process to use them.
But RedHat, Mandrake and SuSE never caused me any problems. Ever. X worked. The mouse worked. The sound worked. The NIC worked. The internal modem didn't work, but I knew that going into it (and external modems are cheap, anyways). For these distros, I had to modify precisely 0 config files. I had to specify precisely 0 hardware specs; the "hardest" thing I had to do was choose my desktop resolution, which you have to do for Windows too.
Yes. So I attached my digital camera. RedHat and SuSE detected it and set it up for me without any input from me.Hmmm... noatun, xmms, and gnome-cd have always worked for me, without my messing with them. Windows Media Player 9 always seems to choke on weird codecs that it can't find; the Linux players seem to find them quite easily. That's exactly my point: the "easy" Linux distros have required less input and configuration from me than the comparable Windows software.
That's another good example. I use comcast cable for my ISP. I plugged the cable into my NIC, RedHat and SuSE both said something like "You appear to be connected to the Internet; would you like to use that connection to surf the web and check your email?" Click yes, and 2 seconds later I'm surfing with Mozilla. I'm not sure what you mean by "compatible"; the only compatability issues I've had are with DFAS which wants a browser version > 5 no matter the vendor.
Compare this to Windows, which made me open up "Network Connection 1", configure TCP/IP, and select a gateway and DNS server (it couldn't seem to find the DNS server automatically like it was supposed to; Linux had no problem).
Applications > Internet > Chat. Offered me GAIM, IRC, ICQ, and Jabber. Opened up GAIM; it asked me which network(s) I wanted to use. I selected the ones I had accounts on, logged in, and chatted. What's so hard about that?
What problems do people keep having that makes RedHat or SuSE so "difficult" to install and get running? Am I just exceptionally lucky in the hardware I came across? Why have RedHat and SuSE required less manual configuation on my part than Windows 2000 or XP?
Seriously, I'd like to hear from somebody who can't get Linux to install. Are you trying to install something like Debian or Gentoo? Do you have hardware produced only in Moldova? What's the issue?
All's true that is mistrusted
Erm, you have NEVER EVER EVER had to reboot to change a setting like this in any release of linux.
The ONLY thing you have to reboot for is a kernel upgrade, new hardware that you can't hotplug, or fucked hardware ( IE shitty nVidia drivers just raped the AGP bus. )
All of your attacks seem to be based on Windows 95. Some are still valid with Win2k, but none seem valid directed against linux.
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
that why it's called 2.6.0-test4
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
Yes, I've seen this problem a lot. People are comparing the ease of use of Windows to the ease of use of Gentoo or similar, in which case Windows is a whole lot easier (don't get me wrong, I love Gentoo). If you're going to compare the ease of use of Windows with linux, compare it with a distro that's designed for ease of use, like Mandrake.
And for all users who complain about a kernel compile being hard compared to windows, if you think about it, in windows you aren't given the option to modify the compile options of the OS which is basically like someone just using binary packages (rpm, deb, etc) in Linux. So if you want windowsupdate like updates, subscribe to the "Redhat Network" or get a free one system trial account. It is really not that expensive and you can have your system updated without messing with things. And if it comes down to a new kernel revision, Download a new ISO and "upgrade"
Actually, yes. Gentoo manages the update without much trouble, just emerge -pv development-sources and it will handle the module-init-tools downloading... you cd /usr/src/linux-beta (simlink), compile the kernel and shoot it...
It actually feels quite faster in desktop, in particular with things like compilling + listening to music + web browsing... And I didnt have much trouble in making it work... I have quite a particular config (nforce2, ice1712 soundcard...) and the only problem was finding the patch to compile the nvnet module...
Try it!
It only requires that you patch util-linux which kerneli also requires. So your choice is to use loop-aes or kerneli with the main difference being a single up to date patch (for each new kernel) with loop-aes or you can be confused why kerneli doesn't even have patches for the last FOUR kernels in the 2.4.x branch.
;-p
Kerneli isn't a worth while choice anymore and it hasn't been as long as jari has been working on the AES(blowfish, serpent,twofish,etc) support. I suggest you stop trolling and use it
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
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.
You still need the patch, look at cryptoapi.org.
loop-aes is faster. Ask the mailing lists if you want someone to explain the reasons. loop-aes has other neat crypto projects like aespipe as well. In genereal I agree with the framework, I however don't think that I trust it yet. If it's better, I will hear a great deal about it and I imagine, jari would merge or do something like that.
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M