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
Glad to see that he still has his C64 alive and kicking as well..
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
Still maintaining the 1.0 kernel? :)
This space is not for rent.
Isn't it great? One of the best things with free software is that anyone is free to maintain and support it for as long as they wish. Compare to say, NT 4.0, which is perfectly capable for some tasks, but users are forced to switch because MS cuts support (read: no more security updates.)
.: Max Romantschuk
Not many people realize that a lot of us in the aerospace community rely on older versions of the kernel due to its "nimbleness" for fly-by-wire systems, etc. A lot of us don't need the newer features of more recent kernels, and having something that does the bare minimum--fast-- is optimal.
We really have to be thankful that people maintain the older versions!
I've got at least a dozen production machines which have been going since Slackware 3.6, so I'm very glad to see the 2.0 kernels still being 'overseen' by someone.
The hardware is old, it works with the 2.0.x kernels, it works fast and without issues (except for exploits of course), so why bother making a radical change which might end up breaking more by moving to the latest.
There's you're answer to "who's using it"... Debian!
I have to admit, I suspected it all along...
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
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. :)
How come that such a skilled person with enough references can't find a job?
after reading his interview, it seems to me as if there are still fairly frequent problems with 2.0 relating to stability and potential security problems.
I don't recall hearing about these problems all that often with the newer 2.4; is it just my perception, or are the new kernels more soundly written than the older ones?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The 2.0 kernel is great, even though it is old it is quite reliab=20 ]} $}1}&..}=3Dr}'}"}[NO CARRIER]
If a kernel maintainer can't find a programming job then the programming profession is pretty much destroyed already.
I think it was officially mentioned at some point by Alan that 2.2.x is now maintained by the VOLK (or was it WOLK) project. There's a page in sourceforge.net that has a newer 2.2, although the sourceforge site appears to be unreachabel just now, so cannot specify the URL.
Oh yeah, he's the perfect employee. He spends all his time writing free software and poetry. I'll go ask my boss to open up a req at $100k/yr on that job description right now.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
They have kernel "2.2.25-3-SECURE", updated August 20, 2003.
These things can actually be good things for a programmer though.. Most of the best programmers I know, and we're talking real code wizards here, lack Comp Sci degrees, aren't very social, and have big egos amongst their type.. but they do the work and don't complain.
I disagree. That type of programmer is the kind who has a hard time doing things any other way than his way. If management says "this NEEDS to be done this way", he's the one saying "that's stupid because I wouldn't do it that way. Therefore, no one else would do it that way." You tend to see this attitude a lot on Slashdot, usually when someone points out something Linux can't do but Windows can. To which, the Linux zealot/anti-social programmer will reply: "so what? That's stupid. No one would want to do that anyway."
These people are not necessarily the best people to have on a team.
If I'm putting the life in the hands of a computer, I damn well want to be able to know about every piece of code that computer is running.
No offense, but I'm willing to bet that you've broken this axiom many, many times... possibly without even realizing it. Do you know about every piece of code that the computer in your car is running? Hell, do you even know about every piece of metal that's in your engine? There are tons of possible malfunctions in cars that could easily cause the death of the driver, or at least a major accident.
Not to mention that no one has the time to personally look over the source code to an airplane's systems before they're willing to take that business trip.
It would be nice to know that you have the option to look at all the code if you want, but I'd be willing to bet that if there were any major problems in there that Boeing or Chevrolet's engineers didn't see, you probably wouldn't see it either.... perhaps if you were actively using the code yourself, but certainly not on a cursory glance anyways.
Besides, if there is going to be a mistake, it's probably more likely that it's due to human error than some computer glitch, so I hope you're checking up on the pilots credentials every time you board a plane, and check a driver's license every time you get on a bus or taxi.
-"One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man." -EH