Hello Tomi, hello all,
Firstly, I want to thank Tomi for his qualified reply to my text, but
based on information I have, I would have to make some additional
remarks.
> > > Could someone explain (again :-)) the kernel installation procedure
> > > for the 2.0.31+ kernels (up to the latest 2.0.x kernel) on this list?
> > > Which kernels do require which patch?
> > > I'll make a summary and send a AX25-HOWTO change request
> > > to the maintainer (Terry Dawson).
>
> Terry is well aware of the current situation. He is just very busy with
> other higher priority projects so AX25-howto will probably have to wait.
A thing I fully understand. It's the same with me. A lot of projects
are there and still have to wait because there's not enough time.
Among them is creating the official version of the german AX.25-
HOWTO translation in SGML :)
> > You are right. Although Bob Nielsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > thinks the AX.25-HOWTO is up-to date, it really isn't.
>
> I guess Bob overestimated the amateur commutitys ability to adapt
> slightly inaccurate information to the current situation. Oh well...
That's a wirdespread problem. Once you're familiar with all these
things you can't even imagine that someone could have problems
with them. It's just like the town's inhabitant that just can't
understand why the tourists have difficulties to find certain places
in his town.
> > 1. Get kernel version 2.0.36,
> The official and best place to get a kernel is ftp/www.kernel.org and its
> mirrors. There is a list of the available mirrors at
> http://www.kernel.org/mirrors/. For you Gerd it would be
> ftp.de.kernel.org, for me ftp.fi.kernel.org and so on.
Allthough this is exactly right there may be some even better
choices for certain people. To speak for myself, the kernel archive
is sitting somewhere at the Leipzig University FTP server. Why
should I then go to ftp.de.kernel.org :) ?
>
> There is _NO_ excuse for using a kernel other than 2.0.36 or 2.2.5. So the
> above list compresses to:
>
> linux-2.0.36 (no patch module needed) ax25-utils-2.1.42a.tar.gz
> linux-2.2.5 (no patch module needed) ax25-utils-2.1.42a.tar.gz
>
> No need to confuse people with anything else.
Also right - I'll go and change this very soon :)
>
> > The kernels of the 2.2 series use a completely different driver
> > architecture. Watch the newsgroups - no driver from older kernels
> > can be used any more. All the drivers are called in a different way,
> > they also have new names.
> > For AX.25, this means that you must set up everything from
> > scratch. All the old drivers are unusable with the new kernel.
>
> Argh... For AX.25 there is almost no change from 2.0.36 (other than stuff
> _inside_ the kernel, invisible to userspace). The change of max.
> digipeaters is perhaps the biggest and will only need a recompile of the
> utils. The other changes are minor and need only little tweaking of the
> utils source. Glibc is the one causing bigger problems.
>
Here I must disagree with you. What you said is not true for the
_whole_ AX.25, but only for certain parts of it.
Let's take the several device drivers, BayCom in particular. They've
got different names and a different syntax for calling them.
As for the recompile of the utils, some messages exist stating that
there are some problems with missing header files and also with
glibc. I personally experienced that it is impossible to compile the
AX.25 utils under Debian 2.0r3 (glibc based).
Maybe this also needs only some simple changes in the source
but for all these not familiar with C in general and AX.25 utils in
particular this is just _not_ that simple.
> > There's another thing one should take care of when switching to the
> > new kernel. It doubtless has its advantages but it also has much
> > more hardware requirements than 2.0.x. The new memory
> > management significantly increases the speed of loading large
> > programs and the overall system performance. But it needs at least
> > 64 MBytes of _physical_ RAM to unleash all its power. Also, a
> > pentium processor running at a speed higher than 200 MHz would
> > be fine.
>
> What? I have a 120 MHz pentium at home. It currently has 64MB but I used
> it for a while with 32MB and it was quite usable. And I run X all the
> time, with uptimes of couple of weeks. Admitted that running memory
> leaking applications like netscape made it swap quite a lot but it was
> usable. I haven't done any objective testing but in my opinion 2.0.36 was
> slower and less usable.
I repeated someone else's experiences here. For the 2.0.36 kernel,
I just can' t say at all that it its usability is limited or that it is
running slow.
Best regards, 73
Gerd
