Slashdot Mirror
Talking With 2.0 Kernel Maintainer David Weinehall
Jeremy Andrews writes "While the recently released 2.6 Linux kernel is all the rage these days, the much older 2.0 kernel is still alive and kicking. KernelTrap has interviewed David Weinehall, the maintainer of the 2.0 Linux kernel. David became the 2.0 maintainer in December of 1999, after Alan Cox moved on to work full time on the 2.2 kernel. In this interview David talks about what's involved in maintaining the 2.0 kernel, who uses it, when we can expect the impending release of 2.0.40, why you should upgrade (if you're still running 2.0.39), and more."
Linux 2.0 is fine for systems that don't need the power and capabilities of the 2.6 kernel.
While the 2.2 kernel was pretty much a bust, the 2.4 kernel proved itself wonderfully capable.
Still, I would love to see BSD or AIX stacked up against Linux 2.0.
I have been pwned because my
That was an interesting interview. It's nice to see some people still use the good old Commodore 64 for programming.
---
http://www.agigames.com
These guys have the tools to let you make your own adventure games.
Free Wii Points
What you have to realize is the cost of developing a proprietary system versus being able to use COTS (consumer off the shell) parts and a FREE OS. The testing procedures are the same as with a proprietary system, but you have the benefit of a OS that has been thoroughly tested by MANY people over 5 years or so. Bundle this with a modern, fast Intel processor and you don't have to worry about designing a gigahertz system yourself--certainly a fair design challenge.
The bottom line is cost. This has opened up many doors for experimental aircraft as well.
I don't remember where I read this, and I can't find the site now... But I seem to recall that kernel versions take the form X.Y.Z, where X is the major number, Y is the minor number, Z is the incremental number. X is only incremented whenever the kernel is changed so massively, that compatibility is broken with older versions of the kernel. Given this, it seems unlikely that anyone would be interested in maintaining the 1.*.* series.
2.6.2 has been out for several hours now ... (changelog here) - surprised /. hasn't picked this up yet. It's not like the /. editors care about hammering a site. :)
test it and see for yourself
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
seems he doesnt have a degree yet ( even if he is studying now ), thats very important if you want to enter the swedish it-market today.
.... hmmm.. ).
the days when you could get a cs/it-job as coding html/css is over ( been there, done that, im also studying cs, but i guess i lack in the "patching-the-kernel"-department... perhaps i should take up kernel 1.0
They have kernel "2.2.25-3-SECURE", updated August 20, 2003.
There were a lot security related bugs fixedin 2.4 in the same period. 2.4.23 was put out only for a security relevant patch. Another bug was fixed in 2.4.21 that later turned out to have been exploited in the Debian compromise. Local root exploits are not rare, unfortunately. If you also count the local-DoS (i.e., non-root user can cause kernel crash), then you get plenty, in fact.
ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v1.0/
Doesn't look like it. The most recent files are from April 1994.
He (that'd be yours truly) got unemployed only a month ago, so I've been busy doing other things.