Future of 2.4 and 2.6 Kernels

Blair16 writes "According to this article on C|Net, not everybody is chomping at the bit for the new Linux 2.6.0 kernel. Marcelo Tosatti, the appointed deputy for the 2.4 kernel is not expecting to make any non-crucial additions to the popular kernel, saying that all new projects should be pumped into the new 2.6. This has upset some people who are not quite willing to move to so-called untested software. Some of their claims seem legitimate, but I wonder if all these people will really be left in the cold?"

Comments

Get Real

[Richard_at_work]

From the linked email:

Having that mentioned, I pretend to: - Fix pending problems which might required more intrusive modifications during 2.4.24. New drivers will be accept during this period (for example, Cyclades PC300 driver, input userlevel driver support, or other sane driver which might come up). - From 2.4.25 on, fix only critical/security problems.

Heh, so that solves the issue of being a kernel maintainer with little time on your hands, only pretend to do stuff :)

From the story text:

. This has upset some people who are not quite willing to move to so-called untested software. Some of their claims seem legitimate, but I wonder if all these people will really be left in the cold

Seriously, are people expecting major changes and new features to be added to a kernel that is supposed to be the stable branch? Doesnt this stuff belong in 2.6? or hell, even 2.7? I for one wouldnt like my kernel to constantly have new and untested features when its supposed to be production capable!

Re:Get Real

[ActiveSX]

I mean which is the One True Mouse?

/dev/input/mice - All events from all plugged in mice (hotplug supported ones, anyway) get sent through this device.

historically

[OffTheLip]

Linux kernels are generally released when ready and not sooner.

well,

[Dreadlord]

...so-called untested software...

I don't know, but shouldn't someone actually test it to become tested? This is the way Open Source works, everyone should help developing the software, even non-programmers, by testing, and I guess the kernel team won't release something for production until it is ready for.

Re:well,

[log2.0]

Im still using 2.4 myself but what I have seen of 2.6 looks very promising.
Nobody is saying that you have to upgrade to 2.6 NOW. 2.4 will still be there and by the time you need something thats not in 2.4, it should be about time for you to switch to 2.6.
These people arent even paying anything for the kernel and they are bitching about it!
I say THANKS to the developers for providing a great piece of software, opensource.

Re:well,

[fireboy1919]

I'm using 2.6 most of the time. 2.6 compiles a little faster, runs a little better, and I don't have to patch it as much to use stuff I'd like to use (like ALSA, and preemptive scheduling). If it wasn't for the random crashes, it'd be great.

On the other hand, they STILL haven't addressed CD/DVD-burning at all. There's no support for variable length packet writing, and fixed length is in it's infancy (this is difficult because of a design flaw in the kernel - something that could have been redesigned about three years ago when the format came out). This will be a big problem specifically because DVD+-RW drives are getting pretty cheap, and people can just copy files straight to them on all the other major OSes.

The drives have a standard media format, as well as a standard kind of driver (MMC). There's not really a great reason why using DVD and CD media in UDF format shouldn't involve just mounting a drive and copying files to it.

I guess we'll have to wait another four years before we have close to decent support for cheap file backup.

Have cake and eat it too

[the eric conspiracy]

Of course people want new features AND stability.

Pretty funny.

"pretend"

[Anonymous Coward]

He sent another mail later that he ment "intend".

Apparently enough people had sent him a patch for that one ;)

Future of Linux generally

[Sanity]

I think a more general question about how Linux is going to topple Microsoft on the desktop is also warrented. The answer has to be innovation, Linux has been playing "catch-up" for too long.

Fortunately, there are a few really interesting technologies that have received surprisingly little attention, but which I believe point the way toward Linux overtaking Microsoft, and perhaps even Apple on the desktop:

• Dashboard
  This is a wonderful idea where a "dashboard" essentially acts as a memory augmentation tool. It watches what you are doing and presents information it thinks might be relevant. For example, if you are chatting with someone on IRC, it will look for information about that person and present it to you (such as their name, homepage, recent blog entries etc). Applications can support it by sending it "clue packets" to alert it to what it might want to pay attention to.
• Zero Install
  This software essentially eliminates the process of information by mapping web-servers to the filesystem, and combining this with a fast local cache. If your software relies on another piece of software, it can just refer to its binary or libraries on this "web" filesystem, and the appropriate files will be downloaded transparently. The next time you need them, they will be cached. It is infinitely cooler than DEBs or RPMs, and very flexible indeed.
• Gnome Storage
  This project blurs the line between filesystems and databases, creating much more flexibility than is possible with more conventional filesystems. This is particularly powerful when combined with Zero Install. Microsoft is also moving in this direction with their WinFS that will be part of Longhorn.

These projects are the future of Linux, they are novel ideas that will allow Linux to leap-frog its non-free competitors on the desktop. It is a shame that they receive so little attention.

Time for Stability

[M_Carling]

Marcello's position means that the 2.4.x will become much more solid than any Linux kernel has ever been. As new hardware is introduced, there will be pressure to accept drivers to support popular hardware. I expect that Marcello will accept drivers as necessary for 2.4.x to run on popular hardware -- after all, such new drivers impose minimal risk on users without such hardware. I welcome this development, but will keep on open mind as time prove its merit or lack thereof.

2.5 didnt immediately follow 2.4.0 release.....

[Anonymous Coward]

When Linus released 2.4.0, there was a several
month pause before opening 2.5.0. This was to
allow continued bugfix and stabilization work
to happen on 2.4.0. It seems reasonable that
he would do the same w/ 2.6/2.7. So, there should
not be any fear of 2.6 suffering from developer
inattention in the several months after release.
If Linus doesn't release 2.7, the developers can't
ignore 2.6.

I support Marcelo's position

[palmito]

This has upset some people who are not quite willing to move to so-called untested software. Some of their claims seem legitimate, but I wonder if all these people will really be left in the cold.

This is really not true, since almost ALL the features in the 2.6 branch are available as patches for the 2.4. The 2.4 branch has achieved a nice level of maturity and adding a lot of new stuff to it now makes no sense.

The people complaining should learn the magic of open source. They should realise that at any desirable time they can start mantaining their own tree with their desired features. Hell, starting a new tree is not even necessary since there is such a big variety of 2.4 trees around that the feature they want is most likely already beeing supported by someone else in one of them.

Open Source Model

[jfmiller]

Isn't the joy of the OSS model, that if this were truely a problem, a group of users (presumable corperations interested in the viability of thier 2.4 kernel) could get together to create and maintain a patch for the 2.4 kernel that would back port more then just the critical updates from 2.6? I thought that the whole point of having an open model was to allow everyone to mess with the code to make it fit their needs. I know there is always a fear of forking, and that someone will bring up the issue, but there are many patches some like the -ac patch even get posted on kernel.org.

There has alwasy been a gap between the needs of buisness for stable and realiable software and the desire of enthusiests for the latest and greatest. as Linux continues to gain share in diverse markets, I antisipate that the number of patches will likewize increase, making a kernel that can meet the needs of several different types of users.

JFMILLER