Slashdot Mirror


A Linux Kernel More Stable Than -stable

jfruhlinger writes '-stable' is the term for the current Linux release most suitable for general use; but as Linux moves into more and more niches, there's a need for a kernel more stable than -stable, which is updated fairly regularly. Both enterprise and embedded systems in particular need a longer horizon of kernel stability, which prompted Greg Kroah-Hartman, then at SuSE, to establish a -longterm kernel, which will remain stable for up to two years. Now there are moves to get this schedule formalized — moves that are a good sign of Linux's long-term health."

27 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Maybe other open source projects take the hint and provide something where I can install and not worry about it breaking every few months. You don't buy a new car every month.

    1. Re:Good by webmistressrachel · · Score: 2

      Speaking of which... I think I guessed that you were about to suggest backup? Maintenance isn't limited to upgrades, you know! Preventative maintenance is much more effective than hard disk recovery!

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    2. Re:Good by GreyLurk · · Score: 2

      Ubuntu has their LTS releases, which aim for the same thing. No "new feature" releases, just stability and security upgrades.

    3. Re:Good by Tarlus · · Score: 2

      echo alias update=''sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude -y upgrade" > ~/.bashrc

      From any subsequent bash session, just run 'update'. More properly it should be added to .bash_aliases with its inclusion enabled in .bashrc, but splitting hairs kills the fun. =)

      --
      /* No Comment */
    4. Re:Good by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yay, done with maintenance for a while.

      This isn't about your server or your workstation.

      Its about your wifi routers ADSL modems, cable modems, and electric toasters , and everything else that has linux embedded these days, many millions of which are attached directly to the net, serving as your first line of defense.

      Not one in a hundred wifi routers get updated over their life span.

      I have servers running ancient linux. (Embarrassed to say just HOW old). They do specific tasks and have no user accounts, and they reside on the Local net, but still any disgruntled employee could own them if they tried. There is no patch source for these old installations, and trying to back port security patches is simply a non-starter.

      Two years is not enough. 5 years is marginal. Even then, I want nothing but security patches. If I need the next version of something I'll upgrade, but for embedded devices or single purpose servers, all I need is security fixes.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    5. Re:Good by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Embedded systems is the focus of this article.

      Indeed. When was the last time you did a kernel update on your washer or car? Yet, the manufacturer must be able to do so if a serious flaw is discovered down the road.

      2 years is laughable. In the embedded world, 10 years would be more like it.

      Also consider the need for long-term stable kernels outside the embedded world. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is supported for 7-10 years with a support agreement. RHEL5 is still at 2.6.18, and will stay so for years. Maintaining compatibility is paramount to many businesses.
      Red Hat, being a big vendor, is able to backport important patches into the 2.6.18 kernel, but not everyone has that luxury, and may look upstreams for their patches.

      2 years for stable, and 10 years for longterm stable would be better. Reintroducing the odd-for-unstable naming convention would also help, IMHO.

    6. Re:Good by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      echo alias update=''sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude -y upgrade" > ~/.bashrc

      echo alias update=''sudo aptitude update && sudo aptitude -y upgrade" >> ~/.bashrc

      wuauclt /detectnow

      -or if you prefer to use your computer instead of typing on it: Start - Windows Updates - Check For Updates

      On my Linux machine, I can do something similar...
      Click System > Administration > Update Manager

      Linux gives you the option of typing or doing the clicky thing.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  2. Red Hat by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Isn't this basically what Red Hat does - back porting security and bug fixes to an established maintenance point for the kernel and many of their other packages?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  3. Do Firefox Devs Dream of Stable Releases? by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny

    Both enterprise and embedded systems in particular need a longer horizon of kernel stability, which prompted Greg Kroah-Hartman, then at SuSE, to establish a -longterm kernel, which will remain stable for up to two years.

    Have you ever taken a Kroah-Hartman test? It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response.

    Hartman: You're in a repository, compiling a kernel, when all of a sudden you look down.
    Dotzler: What version?
    Hartman: What?
    Dotzler: What version?
    Hartman: It doesn't make any difference what version - it's completely hypothetical.
    Dotzler: That's what I've been trying to convince the world all week!
    Hartman: Maybe you're fed up. Maybe you want to be by yourself. Who knows? You look down at the screen and see the codebase in TortoiseGIT. It's crawling toward release.
    Dotzler: TortoiseGIT? What's that?
    Hartman: You know what TortoiseSVN was?
    Dotzler: Of course!
    Hartman: Same thing.
    Dotzler: I've never seen a stable UI. But I understand what you mean.
    Hartman: You merge some code down, change the UI, and increment the release number just for the hell of it, Asa.
    Dotzler: Do you make up these questions Mr. Hartman? Or do Slashdotters just write cheap pop culture parodies instead of working?
    Hartman: The project lays on its back, its belly baking in the white-hot flames of a thousand angry users, beating its legs trying to make itself stable but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.
    Dotzler: What do you mean I'm not helping?
    Hartman: I mean you're not helping! Why is that, Asa? (pause) They're just questions, Asa. In answer to your query, it was either this or a filk based on a Rob Zombie song. It's a test, designed to provoke an emotional response. Shall we continue?
    Dotzler: Nothing is worse than having an itch you can never scratch!
    Hartman: Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about your mother.
    Dotzler: My mother?
    Hartman: Yeah.
    Dotzler: Let me tell you about my mother... *BLAM BLAM BLAM*

    "More stable than -stable", that's our motto.

    1. Re:Do Firefox Devs Dream of Stable Releases? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I want more runtime, fucker!

  4. Isn't Greg still at SUSE? by Sits · · Score: 3

    Why does the summary say "then at SuSE"? Greg's still working for SUSE/Novell as a Linux kernel developer fellow right?

  5. What will this do to version numbering? by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Since the -longterm is going to have to be based off of a -stable release and be maintained off that branch, we end right back where we were, with four version numbers, each level denoting the number of rounds of fixes applied to the number to the left. Only there's now going to be increased stagger, since stable will lag behind the release and longterm will lag behind stable. (They have to.)

    If we're going to have lots of version numbers, then going back to the odd/even minor digit makes more sense than to do rapid increments. Yes, this pushes us out to five digits, which is borderline insane, but it is then five digits that carry specific pieces of discrete information rather than four digits where two don't necessarily convey a whole lot.

    --
    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)
    1. Re:What will this do to version numbering? by MasterPatricko · · Score: 5, Informative

      "this guy" is Greg K-H, second-in-command to Linus and the maintainer of the -stable tree. His arguments were one of the main reasons Linus changed the 3.0 numbering. Greg is just proposing that he maintains another tree officially, not a "fork".
      As for version numbering, I think there will be 3 numbers - first two for mainline releases, and one more for stable/longterm patch level. I don't think -longterm will be needing an extra number.

      --
      I'd tell a UDP joke, but you may not get it. I'd tell a TCP joke, but I'd have to keep repeating it until you got it.
  6. Another thought... by jd · · Score: 2

    Yes, a static baseline is great for certification programs such as EAL and FAA approval, but it's not the only sort of "stable" that you want. Data centres want a "carrier-grade" OS (which means five nines reliability). They don't necessarily care if they have to patch, since you can now hot-patch the kernel without taking it down, but they absolutely do not want the software to show any unreliability whatsoever. They'd likely get upset at having to patch more than once a year, since in-situ patching isn't always safe, but if you're limited to a few minutes downtime a year on a server as an absolute maximum (this is ignoring failover, etc, that's a whole different issue than a specific physical or virtual server instance being five nines) then I could see it being tolerated a whole lot more than a blind kernel upgrade at year's end.

    (This assumes that the hot upgrades can be made fault-tolerant enough that a brown-paper-bag release - you know they're going to happen on any tree eventually - can be backed out without violating five nines.)

    --
    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)
  7. Negaverse by gman003 · · Score: 3

    Wait, a piece of software moving towards a slower, more enterprise-friendly release system, in direct contradiction of recent trends (see: Firefox 10)?

    1. Re:Negaverse by Tanktalus · · Score: 2

      What you're missing is that Firefox doesn't want to target the enterprise. What Mozilla is missing is that if they fail to target the enterprise, IE pretty much carries the day there.

  8. Re: BSD. by John+Sokol · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Hello constant updates is not a sign of Stability!
    The problem is there isn't much need for commercial support for something that doesn't break all the time.

    I have used RedHat in a server farm of over 1000 systems and I have used FreeBSD in servers systems that were a little smaller.

    The BSD generally run's behind in code version on the application side, but these are more stable and not constantly pushing the bleeding edge. It's used inside Router and Big server farms and so tends to be better on the network side.

    With Red hat we had so many problem with the BNX/BNX2 10 GB ethernet drivers, it was a nightmare scenario with over $500,000K in blade servers constantly crashing, there were the HP vendor drivers, and the RH drivers and the Linux main line drivers, which we ended up building and using till RH caught up.

    FreeBSD is hardly dead. Some of the fastest network drivers exist in FreeBSD.
    At this point the BSD's are almost a flavor of Linux. There is a Linux compatibility layer also.

    I have written drivers for Both BSD and Linux. BSD drivers are generally much clean and more straight forward and it's because of them that many HW vendors bring up a BSD driver first even if they choose never to share it.

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
  9. Stable = Older by John+Sokol · · Score: 2

    By definition a stable system has to be running older code that's been fixed and is well understood rather then "the latest" updated code.

    If your constantly churning and updating you can not be stable.

    Red Had run's behind the main Linux distribution to get added stability.

    But FreeBSD which seems old and stodgy is like that because of the emphasis on stability over features and improvement.
    It's also simpler under the hood which is also important for Stability.

    But it all depends on what your trying to do. GUI vs. Server.
    For Server I'd go with BSD.
    For GUI I'd go with Windows, Apple OS-X (BSD variant), maybe Android (haven't developed on it yet) X Windows just sucks.
    For Embedded , I'd go with what ever the eval boards ship with. Usually Linux these days. (Certainly not PSOS or QNIX)

    At this point I can compile the same code on all of these using GCC and run them equally well. They are all Posix compliant. SDL run's on all of them.
    Java also run on them. So does Flash, LLVM, TCL, PERL, RUBY, Python or what ever langue du jour.

    Let's end the religious wars on OS's, it's about getting your work done. The OS is just a platform for the language your want your code to run on.

    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
    1. Re:Stable = Older by NateTech · · Score: 2

      Ahh, been using Linux since 1995. Never seen that "more solid" thing come out of open-source yet.

      Reason is, most devs don't look at code, they write it. Looking at someone's old code and trying to fix it is something a smaller percentage of devs do than those who just slap more code out.

      Linux's stability lies in the original design (UNIX), not so much in the "many eyes/many hands" thing. That and distros who are willing to slow the process so businesses can actually use the stuff.

      And the most stable things on Linux aren't so much the OS, as they are great applications which somehow have stood the test of time... Apache comes to mind...

      --
      +++OK ATH
  10. How to make Linux stable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    1) insert Windows install disk
    2) c: format
    3) run win7.exe
    4) PROFIT!!!!

  11. Re:Good - sacrilege by rust627 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "....... I am sick of the comparison between the car and desktop-computer industries."

    This is /. How dare you sir.

    for such a sacrilegious statement you should go to the front counter and hand in your slashdot number and name /. without Car analogies would be like.... like....., like a car without seats.

    --
    da da da dum indeed.
  12. 2 years isn't a lot by GPLHost-Thomas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Debian security support stands for more than 2 years. So if you say "more than 2 years", I'd say, that's what we get with any Debian release. So I hope that the plan is to have it for longer, otherwise it's YASM (Yet Another Suse Marketing...). There's all signs that 2.6.32 will be maintained for a long long, very long, extremely long time, since so many distro are using it.

  13. And a stable API, anytime? by renzhi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Linux could have dominated, if there was some sort of stable API for third-party developers. Developing for the Linux platform quickly becomes an experience of insanity, when you start doing compatibility test, and the test matrix just explodes.

    I'd say, if it was too hard to keep API stable across all versions of Linux, maybe we should at least have API stable for all minor versions, say, 2.6.x?

    I know all the arguments for moving faster, for keeping a cleaner code base, etc. But hell, what good is a shiny kernel if the apps can't keep up with?

    Just venting, from my experiences working with kernel module.

  14. Real-time Kernel Patches Synchronisation? by highways · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the target for a long-term stable kernel is embedded systems, then I would suggest having some sort of arrangement with the real-time kernel patches which typically don't release with every kernel.

    If, for example, 2.6.39 was chosen as a -longterm, it's unattractive for many embedded developers without the option of the -rt.

  15. Re:Enterprise? by BillX · · Score: 2

    NCC-1701-D?
    (i.e, Life support: When you just can't afford to turn it off and then on again.)

    --
    Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
  16. Re: BSD. by John+Sokol · · Score: 2
    --
    I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
  17. planned obsolescence by drwho · · Score: 2

    Kroah-Hartman says - "Consumer devices have a 1-2 year lifespan" -- this is a sign of our times. Just make junk that last a couple of years at best, and then chuck it. It would be far better to create devices that last twenty years and can be updated and repaired. This is why I like 'dumb phones'- cellphones that are less likely to be pwn3d, last longer, are cheaper, tougher, and easier to use. Ah, I am going to miss you, Nokia, and Motorola, and Siemens, and...