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."

Comments

Latest and greatest not for everyone

[ObviousGuy]

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.

Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone

[Lord Kano]

Thats kinda why I find it more surprising that people use the older versions of the kernel, considering its not costing you more than a few minutes time to download the latest tarball from your local mirror, and setup a new kernel!

I think that's where you're missing the point.

The way the kernel deals with devices changed a great deal between 2.0.x and 2.2.x and even moreso for 2.4.x, if you've got some custom apps that work just fine on the hardware that you're using, what's the point in upgrading?

No risk of having to debug unforseen problems with running your app in a new environment.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

LK

Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone

[Anonymous Coward]

the 2.0.x kernel is used HEAVILY in embedded systems. this is a place where it takes YEARS to get things certified safe to run by the engineers.

Can I install 2.6.1 on that system and run it? you bet I can, and with no speed loss. but I lose the knowledge that the kernel will NOT be a point of failure. Absolutely nobody can tell me the exact failure points of the 2.6 or even the 2.4 kernels. while the 2.0 kernel is completely documented and certified by the in house people here to be 99% solid. (Windows CE get's a 50% rating, a full 5% higher than windows nt,2000,xp) While QNX and BSD here are still below 80% as far as the testing people rate it... and that is what matter's to us.

Not something that a know-nothing with no credentials says in the press.... what we see in real testing over the course of a 24 month period trying to force it to fail. (Yes, even baking the board beyond operating temps...)

all this for testing a firmware for upcoming cable tv boxes and other embedded systems related to video/communication.

Re:Aerospace COmmunity

[nil5]

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.

Speaking of kernel news...

[blixel]

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. :)