Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
I notice that woody installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4 kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision? I'm hoping to start shipping a product that has Debian installed on it in a couple months, and hopefully the stable release of 3.0 will be out by then. Is the plan to have stable 3.0 run a 2.2 kernel? There's nothing particularly wrong with the 2.2 kernel, but I'm starting to see reports of device drivers that run under 2.4 but not 2.2, and one of the device drivers I maintain has features under 2.4 that aren't available under 2.2. I'm planning on building a custom-tailored 2.4.x kernel-image package for above-mentioned product, but I'm wondering if I should also include a similarly configured 2.2 kernel-image... -- Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:32:09 -0500 Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I notice that woody installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4 kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision? TMK, Woody installs the kernel that the installation was started with. There are several boot images for Woody. Most of these are 2.2 kernels, but there is a 2.4 one. -- Jamin W. Collins -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
#include hallo.h Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 12:32:09PM: I notice that woody installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4 Then you should read Release Notes and put the bf2.4 CD into the drive. Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- Wer Stabilität aufgibt, um Benutzerfreundlichkeit zu bekommen, verdient keins der beiden und bekommt meist auch keins. -- frei nach B. Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:29:28PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: #include hallo.h Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 12:32:09PM: I notice that woody installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4 Then you should read Release Notes I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most other distros? and put the bf2.4 CD into the drive. 1) I don't have any Debian CDs. 2) I've already got a 2.4 kernel installed. 3) I'm going to build a custom 2.4 kernel-image package anyway and the product with that. My concern is that if Debian hasn't switched to a 2.4 kernel, there must be a reason. If I start shipping a product with Debian running a 2.4 kernel, I don't want to find out that reason from annoyed customers. -- Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:29:28PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: #include hallo.h Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 12:32:09PM: I notice that woody installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4 Then you should read Release Notes I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most other distros? and put the bf2.4 CD into the drive. 1) I don't have any Debian CDs. 2) I've already got a 2.4 kernel installed. 3) I'm going to build a custom 2.4 kernel-image package anyway and the product with that. My concern is that if Debian hasn't switched to a 2.4 kernel, there must be a reason. If I start shipping a product with Debian running a 2.4 kernel, I don't want to find out that reason from annoyed customers. -- Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go over to the Developers / Debian-Boot mailing list and look for a thread entitled 2.4 kernel as default boot kernel on CD #1 ?? started around 4 April 2002, I think. This might answer some of your questions... dunno. Cheers, -Don Spoon- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:45:46PM -0500, Donald R. Spoon wrote: Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My concern is that if Debian hasn't switched to a 2.4 kernel, there must be a reason. If I start shipping a product with Debian running a 2.4 kernel, I don't want to find out that reason from annoyed customers. Go over to the Developers / Debian-Boot mailing list and look for a thread entitled 2.4 kernel as default boot kernel on CD #1 ?? started around 4 April 2002, I think. This might answer some of your questions... dunno. Thanks! That's _exactly_ what I was looking for. I didn't think to look in that list. Now if I can only figure how to download mailing list archives in mbox format so I can use mutt to read them instead of the web-interface. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with the web-interface, I just don't like web interfaces in general. ;) -- Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
#include hallo.h Grant Edwards wrote on Wed Apr 17, 2002 um 01:14:02PM: I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most other distros? I could try, but I would fail since my answer would not be objective (I am the maintainer of the bf2.4 boot-floppies flavor). My concern is that if Debian hasn't switched to a 2.4 kernel, there must be a reason. If I start shipping a product with Stability. Kernel 2.4.x has this experiment-show taste. Look at the logs between recent 2.4.x releases. The number of bugs is horrible, though most bugs are not really critical. Remember that most distros shiped with extremely patched kernels during the last year, this does not make a good impression. Though 2.4.x development mostly stabilised now. Gruss/Regards, Eduard. -- Du spielst zuviel Quake wenn... ...Du unten im Treppenhaus stehst und fluchst Nicht mal ein Hook hier! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 09:07:30PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote: I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most other distros? I could try, but I would fail since my answer would not be objective (I am the maintainer of the bf2.4 boot-floppies flavor). My concern is that if Debian hasn't switched to a 2.4 kernel, there must be a reason. If I start shipping a product with Stability. Kernel 2.4.x has this experiment-show taste. Look at the logs between recent 2.4.x releases. The number of bugs is horrible, though most bugs are not really critical. Remember that most distros shiped with extremely patched kernels during the last year, this does not make a good impression. Though 2.4.x development mostly stabilised now. Ah, I see. I think I'll ship both 2.2 and 2.4 kernels and let the customer pick which one they want to use. I'll probably configure the bootloader to use the 2.4 kernel by default. Since I'm building for a known-in-advance platform there's not quite as much risk... -- Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 01:45:46PM -0500, Donald R. Spoon wrote: Go over to the Developers / Debian-Boot mailing list and look for a thread entitled 2.4 kernel as default boot kernel on CD #1 ?? started around 4 April 2002, I think. This might answer some of your questions... dunno. I just finished reading the whole thread. It seems to be a hotly contested issue at this point in time. FWIW, I think it would be a shame if Debian 3.0 shipped with 2.2 as the default kernel. Everytime some magazine shows a comparison table, the fact that Debian 3.0 installs a 2.2 kernel by default is going to make Debian look out-of-date -- regardless of how trivial it is to use a non-default 2.4 kernel at install time or how easy it is to switch to a 2.4 kernel later. OTOH, I want to ship my product with Debian 3.0 on it, and I want it to be the stabe version when I get to that point... -- Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
well, how about a few of us on the list get our heads together and make our own debianized release with all the new goodies we would like to see. i think it could be done - maybe a little part-time project - for peeps who could dedicate at least 4-10 hours a week or somethin' like that. i like all the new stuff too...haven't seen any real problems even with unstable...but, then again, i'm only using debian at home...but i think tackling our own distro of debian would be - for lack of a more intelligent term - pretty cool. that is the nature of linux? no? 'do it yourself'? -jeff using kernel 2.4.18, Windowmaker, and unstable...wheee! p.s. i've been playing with CRUX linux too...it might be a nifty alternative...it's light, fast, and uses mostly new packages...pretty slick! no apt though :-\ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wednesday 17 April 2002 21:46, jeff wrote: well, how about a few of us on the list get our heads together and make our own debianized release with all the new goodies we would like to see. i think it could be done - maybe a little part-time project - for peeps who could dedicate at least 4-10 hours a week or somethin' like that. i like all the new stuff too...haven't seen any real problems even with unstable...but, then again, i'm only using debian at home...but i think tackling our own distro of debian would be - for lack of a more intelligent term - pretty cool. that is the nature of linux? no? 'do it yourself'? -jeff using kernel 2.4.18, Windowmaker, and unstable...wheee! p.s. i've been playing with CRUX linux too...it might be a nifty alternative...it's light, fast, and uses mostly new packages...pretty slick! no apt though :-\ We use woody at school with a 2.4.18 kernel without the slightest probs. I use it also at home. I don't think that there is any reson to _not_ take the 2.4 as default. Its very stable and MUCH better than 2.2. I also think that woody should use ext3 defaultly. Shipping a distro today with a standard 2.2 kernel is not smart. Because 95% need to update because they want XFree 4 working probbably with their nvidia cards. Iptables woud be missing and so on. cheers, Raffaele -- Raffaele Sandrini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annoyed about M$ Windows? Don't worry. Try Linux! (www.linux.org) For encrypted Mail get my Public Key from search.keyserver.net ID: 0xEC4950E9 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most other distros? Actually, I can't get 2.2.20 by default. I don't see it on stable, and last time I asked about it I was told to get it off testing. Kindof bad since security listings strongly recommend updating production systems to 2.2.20. There is definitely some unfortunate imperfection in maintenance of stable, IMHO. Nevertheless, I'm still happy to put up with Debian's foibles, as it has a lot of nice features and I think the whole environment is very promising. I keep saying I hope to help out more some day, and I'm not there yet, but I hope to, and more development and QA help is what Debian really needs. I think the direction it is going, despite some glaring problems, is great. -- http://www.eskimo.com/~xeno [EMAIL PROTECTED] Physically I'm at: 5101 N. 45th St., Tacoma, WA, 98407-3717, U.S.A. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 02:10:17PM -0700, Xeno Campanoli wrote: I did. I didn't find the answer to my question. Can you tell me which section explains the reasons why Debian still uses a 2.2.20 kernel by default instead of a 2.4 kernel like most other distros? Actually, I can't get 2.2.20 by default. I don't see it on stable, and last time I asked about it I was told to get it off testing. I installed woody last week from the floppy images and I got 2.2.20. I don't remember what I got when I installed potato the week before. -- Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 02:10:17PM -0700, Xeno Campanoli wrote: Actually, I can't get 2.2.20 by default. I don't see it on stable, and last time I asked about it I was told to get it off testing. Kindof bad since security listings strongly recommend updating production systems to 2.2.20. There is definitely some unfortunate imperfection in maintenance of stable, IMHO. It's not perfect, mostly because there are only a very few people working on stable maintenance. (That said, you only *want* a very few people working on it - if there were more, it probably wouldn't be stable any more.) Nevertheless, I'm still happy to put up with Debian's foibles, as it has a lot of nice features and I think the whole environment is very promising. I keep saying I hope to help out more some day, and I'm not there yet, but I hope to, and more development and QA help is what Debian really needs. Yes yes yes. The QA team is pretty overloaded, from my point of view - there are a lot more things we could be doing if we only had the time and the organization. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
Xeno Campanoli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, I can't get 2.2.20 by default. I don't see it on stable, and
last time I asked about it I was told to get it off testing. Kindof
bad since security listings strongly recommend updating production
systems to 2.2.20.
2.2.19 in Debian's stable is just as secure as 2.2.20, please read
the changelog.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmVHI~} [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote: I notice that woody installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4 kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision? 2.2 was current when woody was in development. Is the plan to have stable 3.0 run a 2.2 kernel? Yes. I'm planning on building a custom-tailored 2.4.x kernel-image package for above-mentioned product, but I'm wondering if I should also include a similarly configured 2.2 kernel-image... Your call. -- Baloo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:58:24PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote: On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote: I notice that woody installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4 kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision? 2.2 was current when woody was in development. I'm not sure what in development means, but 2.4 has been out for close to a year and a half. It certainly hasn't been stable enough for production use for that long, but I'd have a hard time believing that woody has been frozen for that long, since 2.2.20 has only been out for five months. It seems that with every release cycle, the stable Linux kernel becomes less and less stable. It's a sad state of affairs when it takes a year and a half for a stable Linux kernel to become stable enough to ship. :( Is the plan to have stable 3.0 run a 2.2 kernel? Yes. I'm planning on building a custom-tailored 2.4.x kernel-image package for above-mentioned product, but I'm wondering if I should also include a similarly configured 2.2 kernel-image... Your call. It will probably end up depending on how well the 2.2 kernel supports hot-plugging of USB devices. If I can't get that to work, I'll probably ditch 2.2 and just ship 2.4. -- Grant Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
* Grant Edwards ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:58:24PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote: On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote: I notice that woody installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4 kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision? 2.2 was current when woody was in development. I'm not sure what in development means, but 2.4 has been out for close to a year and a half. It certainly hasn't been stable enough for production use for that long, but I'd have a hard time believing that woody has been frozen for that long, since 2.2.20 has only been out for five months. It seems that with every release cycle, the stable Linux kernel becomes less and less stable. It's a sad state of affairs when it takes a year and a half for a stable Linux kernel to become stable enough to ship. :( Is the plan to have stable 3.0 run a 2.2 kernel? Yes. I'm planning on building a custom-tailored 2.4.x kernel-image package for above-mentioned product, but I'm wondering if I should also include a similarly configured 2.2 kernel-image... Your call. It will probably end up depending on how well the 2.2 kernel supports hot-plugging of USB devices. If I can't get that to work, I'll probably ditch 2.2 and just ship 2.4. I had no problems with 2.4.1[78], so I think 2.4 will be stable enough by the time woody is released. So I'd go with 2.4. If you don't use devfs, iptables, and whatever else's not compatible with 2.2, you should be able to fall back to 2.2 if Things Go Bad[tm]. Dima -- Surely there is a polite way to say FOAD.-- Shmuel Metz Go forth and multiply. -- Paul Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why 2.2 kernel instead of 2.4
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 10:39:32PM -0500, Grant Edwards wrote: | On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 07:58:24PM -0700, Paul 'Baloo' Johnson wrote: | On Wed, 17 Apr 2002, Grant Edwards wrote: | | I notice that woody installs a 2.2 kernel instead of a 2.4 | kernel. Are the reasons behind that decision? | | 2.2 was current when woody was in development. | | I'm not sure what in development means, but 2.4 has been out | for close to a year and a half. It certainly hasn't been | stable enough for production use for that long, but I'd have a | hard time believing that woody has been frozen for that long, Believe it. (well, it wasn't quite frozen, but a year ago people predicted woody would be released by november or december) | since 2.2.20 has only been out for five months. The change from 2.2.18pre21 (or whichever was in potato's installer) to 2.2.20 is a much smaller change. | It seems that with every release cycle, the stable Linux | kernel becomes less and less stable. It's a sad state of | affairs when it takes a year and a half for a stable Linux | kernel to become stable enough to ship. :( Yeah. | It will probably end up depending on how well the 2.2 kernel | supports hot-plugging of USB devices. If I can't get that to | work, I'll probably ditch 2.2 and just ship 2.4. FWIW, I hot-plug my (USB) mouse with 2.4 all the time. I've got my desktop machine, and then the laptop I work with is much nicer with my nice mouse than with the touch pad. I've also hot plugged PS/2 keyboards and serial mice with no glitches. (win2k must reboot if you unplug the serial mouse!) -D -- A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend that sticks closer than a brother. Proverbs 18:24 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
