Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[c0330]

Hi everbody,

  Will kernel tree 2.0 stop developing and regard historical after the release 
of 2.6?  I think we would put our focus on much more newer kernel. And I found 
this may confuse the newbies, because they don't know much about versioning in 
Kernel.

  In nowsdays, there are less less compputers using 2.0. We should push them to 
upgrade, so I think stop developing 2.0 is better, in my opinion

------
 0330
------

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[William Lee Irwin III]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 09:35:03PM +0000, c0330 wrote:
>   Will kernel tree 2.0 stop developing and regard historical after
> the release of 2.6?  I think we would put our focus on much more
> newer kernel. And I found this may confuse the newbies, because they
> don't know much about versioning in Kernel.
>   In nowsdays, there are less less compputers using 2.0. We should
> push them to upgrade, so I think stop developing 2.0 is better, in
> my opinion

I don't see why. If 2.0 is what works best for someone there's no
reason to push them to use something else.


Cheers,
Bill

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Rik van Riel]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, c0330 wrote:

>   In nowsdays, there are less less compputers using 2.0. We should push
> them to upgrade, so I think stop developing 2.0 is better, in my opinion

I've never seen you develop 2.0.  How can you stop if you didn't start ?

I think the people who use and maintain 2.0 should decide for themselves
whether maintaining 2.0 is worth it for them. The 2.0 maintenance isn't
taking away any energy from 2.4 and 2.5 development, so there is no reason
to ask people to stop doing what is useful for them.

regards,

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk]

>   Will kernel tree 2.0 stop developing and regard historical after the
> release of 2.6?  I think we would put our focus on much more newer kernel.
> And I found this may confuse the newbies, because they don't know much
> about versioning in Kernel.
>
>   In nowsdays, there are less less compputers using 2.0. We should push
> them to upgrade, so I think stop developing 2.0 is better, in my opinion

Is there any reason at all to use 2.0 instead of 2.2?

-- 
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk, Datavaktmester

Computers are like air conditioners.
They stop working when you open Windows.

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Gerhard Mack]

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:

> Is there any reason at all to use 2.0 instead of 2.2?

On a new system probably not .. on an old system however the effort needed
to upgrade all of the related utilities just isn't worth it.


--
Gerhard Mack

gmack@innerfire.net

<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Thunder from the hill]

Hi,

On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Gerhard Mack wrote:
> > Is there any reason at all to use 2.0 instead of 2.2?
> 
> On a new system probably not .. on an old system however the effort needed
> to upgrade all of the related utilities just isn't worth it.

I think one always gets one's environment tuned to fit himself. (At least 
I do.) I still have some 2.0 machines running, and they're running fine. 
They ran fine since Adam, and will still run fine as long as 2.0 is 
maintained. I can run them without too much administration effort (this is 
cool, since they're about 100 miles away...)

When I have them administrated, I always get this comfortable feeling, 
because the most of it is done by large scripts which check input and 
compute the output by themselves. If I dropped e.g. the old firewalling 
style, I'd have to change ~60% of my scripts to the new firewalling style.

I think this is a good reason not to upgrade to a so-called "recent" 
kernel on those boxes.

							Regards,
							Thunder
-- 
(Use http://www.ebb.org/ungeek if you can't decode)
------BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Version: 3.12
GCS/E/G/S/AT d- s++:-- a? C++$ ULAVHI++++$ P++$ L++++(+++++)$ E W-$
N--- o?  K? w-- O- M V$ PS+ PE- Y- PGP+ t+ 5+ X+ R- !tv b++ DI? !D G
e++++ h* r--- y- 
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Erik Andersen]

On Sat Jul 13, 2002 at 03:43:49PM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> >   Will kernel tree 2.0 stop developing and regard historical after the
> > release of 2.6?  I think we would put our focus on much more newer kernel.
> > And I found this may confuse the newbies, because they don't know much
> > about versioning in Kernel.
> >
> >   In nowsdays, there are less less compputers using 2.0. We should push
> > them to upgrade, so I think stop developing 2.0 is better, in my opinion
> 
> Is there any reason at all to use 2.0 instead of 2.2?

Size.  I recall putting together an mmu-less system running a
2.0.x kernel.  For the first rev of the board I had just 1 MB
of ram.  Try doing that with 2.4.x....  doesn't work.

 -Erik

--
Erik B. Andersen             http://codepoet-consulting.com/
--This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Alan Cox]

On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 22:35, c0330 wrote:
>   Will kernel tree 2.0 stop developing and regard historical after the release 
> of 2.6?  I think we would put our focus on much more newer kernel. And I found 
> this may confuse the newbies, because they don't know much about versioning in 
> Kernel.

Why should you care ? 2.0 can continue to slowly and cautiously get
critical bug fixes between now and the end of time providing someone
cares enough to do the work. There are plenty of 2.0 boxes employed as
routers, print servers, intranet dialins etc which will probably only
become 2.4 boxes when the hardware is taken out of service.

I can't speak for David Weinehall's experience, and I know he does a lot
more chasing down of bug reports than I bother to with 2.2 but in my
experience maintaining a very stable kernel tree like 2.2 is nowdays is
not a massive workload. It primarily consists of sending emails out
which say "no"

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Stephen Frost]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1278 bytes --]

* Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote:
> On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 22:35, c0330 wrote:
> >   Will kernel tree 2.0 stop developing and regard historical after the release 
> > of 2.6?  I think we would put our focus on much more newer kernel. And I found 
> > this may confuse the newbies, because they don't know much about versioning in 
> > Kernel.
> 
> Why should you care ? 2.0 can continue to slowly and cautiously get
> critical bug fixes between now and the end of time providing someone
> cares enough to do the work. There are plenty of 2.0 boxes employed as
> routers, print servers, intranet dialins etc which will probably only
> become 2.4 boxes when the hardware is taken out of service.

I tend to agree with you though I did want to mention that I've got
2.4.18 running on my 386 without any problems so far, just because it's
pretty neat that it works so well.  The machine spends a bit more time
in swap I think which makes some things slow down but that could also be
due to bind9 and sendmail being bigger than they used to be (it's my
secondary DNS server and my primary relay server).  Not disagreeing with
you or questioning what you're saying at all, just mentioning my success
with 2.4.18 on a 386 DX/40 w/ 8M of ram.

	Stephen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Jose Luis Domingo Lopez]

On Saturday, 13 July 2002, at 21:35:03 +0000,
c0330 wrote:

>   Will kernel tree 2.0 stop developing and regard historical after the 
> release of 2.6?  I think we would put our focus on much more newer kernel. 
> And I found this may confuse the newbies, because they don't know much 
> about versioning in Kernel.
> 
Newbies should trust their Linux vendor and keep using the kernel
versions they provide. At least while they are still newbies ;-)

-- 
Jose Luis Domingo Lopez
Linux Registered User #189436     Debian Linux Woody (Linux 2.4.19-pre6aa1)

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Austin Gonyou]

I'd imagine that it would, JMHO, but it makes little sense, at least for
prime-time level maintenance of a kernel who's architecture, while valid
for use in many areas, is still far limited, even in light of 2.4. 

The advancements which 2.6 will bring, over 2.4, will be extraordinarily
different, in terms of overall architecture it seems. Even if it's only
a 20% architecture difference from 2.4, think of how much further from
2.0 that is. 

My $0.02.

On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 16:35, c0330 wrote:
> Hi everbody,
> 
>   Will kernel tree 2.0 stop developing and regard historical after the release 
> of 2.6?  I think we would put our focus on much more newer kernel. And I found 
> this may confuse the newbies, because they don't know much about versioning in 
> Kernel.
> 
>   In nowsdays, there are less less compputers using 2.0. We should push them to 
> upgrade, so I think stop developing 2.0 is better, in my opinion
> 
> ------
>  0330
> ------
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-- 
Austin Gonyou <austin@digitalroadkill.net>

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[David Weinehall]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 11:28:22AM -0500, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> I'd imagine that it would, JMHO, but it makes little sense, at least for
> prime-time level maintenance of a kernel who's architecture, while valid
> for use in many areas, is still far limited, even in light of 2.4. 

The maintenance of the 2.0-tree will continue. I see no point in
ceasing to maintain it just because the release of 2.6. They simply do
not target the same audience.

> The advancements which 2.6 will bring, over 2.4, will be extraordinarily
> different, in terms of overall architecture it seems. Even if it's only
> a 20% architecture difference from 2.4, think of how much further from
> 2.0 that is. 

Yes, and that is why 2.0 is still maintained; for some users, the step
between 2.0 and a later release is too large when it comes to how many
userland programs that need to be upgraded/retested/rewritten.

Really, there is little reason to worry; my contribution to the
development of 2.5 (and a forthcoming 2.6/2.7/2.8/...) would probably
not be much larger were I to drop maintenance of the 2.0-tree. Possibly,
Marcello and Linus would receive a few more odd fixes for typos and
the Config-files, and maybe some MCA-related fixes, but as things stand
right now, the fact that I only have a dialup-connection stands between
me and serious development (<subliminal message>anyone care to sponsor a
faster connection or hire me?</subliminal message>)


Regards: David Weinehall
  _                                                                 _
 // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Austin Gonyou]

On Sat, 2002-07-13 at 18:49, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 11:28:22AM -0500, Austin Gonyou wrote:
> > I'd imagine that it would, JMHO, but it makes little sense, at least for
> > prime-time level maintenance of a kernel who's architecture, while valid
> > for use in many areas, is still far limited, even in light of 2.4. 
> 
> The maintenance of the 2.0-tree will continue. I see no point in
> ceasing to maintain it just because the release of 2.6. They simply do
> not target the same audience.

Agreed. Which is why, for the most part I noted that prime-time level
maintenance will not be the norm. Though *someone* I'm sure *will*
maintain it, even if they're the last person using it on the planet.
>From what I understand, a lot of people target 2.0 for embedded anyway.
While 2.2 and 2.4 are usually after thoughts in that arena. *not all,
but most it seems*

> > The advancements which 2.6 will bring, over 2.4, will be extraordinarily
> > different, in terms of overall architecture it seems. Even if it's only
> > a 20% architecture difference from 2.4, think of how much further from
> > 2.0 that is. 
> 
> Yes, and that is why 2.0 is still maintained; for some users, the step
> between 2.0 and a later release is too large when it comes to how many
> userland programs that need to be upgraded/retested/rewritten.

That's true, but in my mind, except for embedded, these same users could
stand to probably upgrade their hardware as well, not just for speed
improvements, but capacity, and capability. This would most likely force
them into a new kernel to *properly* support newer hardware, or take
advantage of advancements that 2.0 can't offer.

> Really, there is little reason to worry; my contribution to the
> development of 2.5 (and a forthcoming 2.6/2.7/2.8/...) would probably
> not be much larger were I to drop maintenance of the 2.0-tree. Possibly,
> Marcello and Linus would receive a few more odd fixes for typos and
> the Config-files, and maybe some MCA-related fixes, but as things stand
> right now, the fact that I only have a dialup-connection stands between
> me and serious development (<subliminal message>anyone care to sponsor a
> faster connection or hire me?</subliminal message>)

I do agree with that as well. I don't see any reason to worry. It's
open-source, and the codebase will always be available, in *someone's*
repository at least.

> 
> Regards: David Weinehall
>   _                                                                 _
>  // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander      \\
> //  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
> \>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-- 
Austin Gonyou <austin@digitalroadkill.net>

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Bill Davidsen]

On Sun, 14 Jul 2002, David Weinehall wrote:

> Really, there is little reason to worry; my contribution to the
> development of 2.5 (and a forthcoming 2.6/2.7/2.8/...) would probably
> not be much larger were I to drop maintenance of the 2.0-tree. Possibly,
> Marcello and Linus would receive a few more odd fixes for typos and
> the Config-files, and maybe some MCA-related fixes, but as things stand
> right now, the fact that I only have a dialup-connection stands between
> me and serious development (<subliminal message>anyone care to sponsor a
> faster connection or hire me?</subliminal message>)

Out of curiousity, just what will UML run? Can you run 2.0 kernels under
UML? Older than that? Your mention about the pain of upgrading strikes
home.

-- 
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
  CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Jeff Dike]

davidsen@tmr.com said:
> Out of curiousity, just what will UML run? Can you run 2.0 kernels
> under UML? Older than that?

UML itself is 2.3/2.4 only.  The host can be anything later than 2.2.14,
although if you're determined, and willing to patch, you can probably get UML 
to run on kernels back to 2.1.x.  Don't know about 2.0.

				Jeff

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[David Weinehall]

On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 09:35:03PM +0000, c0330 wrote:
> Hi everbody,
> 
> Will kernel tree 2.0 stop developing and regard historical after the
> release of 2.6?  I think we would put our focus on much more newer
> kernel. And I found this may confuse the newbies, because they don't
> know much about versioning in Kernel.
> 
> In nowsdays, there are less less compputers using 2.0. We should
> push them to upgrade, so I think stop developing 2.0 is better, in
> my opinion

The developer-force going into the 2.0-series is not very big. I
consolidate the few fixes I get sent my way that are reasonable, and
reject the rest (lately, most have been reasonable...), and try to
backport some fixes from 2.2/2.4 that are applicable. No new drivers are
added (or developed), and no new features are added.

Besides me, there are a few (no more than five) persons that regularly
report their success/failure/personal gripes with the latest
2.0-releases, and remind me to increase the release-number (I'm as bad
as Alan in this regard...)

The amount of work that I'd spend on a newer kernel would be about the
same, and since I've grown fond of this work, I'll probably not drop
2.0 unless I get offered to take over 2.2 or 2.4 some point in the
future.

Mind you, there _are_ people that still use 2.0 and wouldn't consider an
upgrade the next few years, simply because they know that their
software/hardware works with 2.0 and have documented all quirks.
Upgrading to a newer kernel-series means going through this work again.
And most likely, the upgrade would be to 2.2 rather than 2.4, because
2.4 still gets new features and API-changes now and then, something
generally frowned upon in a controlled environment.

I am about to release 2.0.40 soon, and while 40 is a nice round number,
42 is an even better number to stop at, so that'll probably be the end
of the road. That end lies quite some time in the future, though.


Regards: David Weinehall
  _                                                                 _
 // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </

Re: Future of Kernel tree 2.0 ............

[Eric W. Biederman]

David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> writes:
> 
> I am about to release 2.0.40 soon, and while 40 is a nice round number,
> 42 is an even better number to stop at, so that'll probably be the end
> of the road.

I like the question.  I wonder if the mice ever came up with anything
half as good :)

Eric