Talking With 2.0 Kernel Maintainer David Weinehall 206
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."
Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean I understand what you are saying, but if you were given the choice to upgrade that old copy of Windows 95 to say Windows 98 or better (I use that term loosely) for FREE (and assuming it still ran on the crappy hardware from years ago) then I am sure you would jump at the chance.
Thats kinda why I find it more surprising that people use the older versions of the kernel, considering its not costing you more than a few minutes time to download the latest tarball fr
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:4, Funny)
Oh crap, that's screen burn-in.
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:3, Interesting)
You can get rid of most of the bloated interface with 98lite [litepc.com]. You can strip it all the way down to a CLI if you want.
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:1)
IIRC, its called DOS6.22 then...
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:2)
Win 98SE reports itself as "Win 4.10, DOS 7.10A".
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:2, Interesting)
And 98lite provides all steps in between pure Win98 and CLI.
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:2)
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:5, Informative)
I think that's where you're missing the point.
The way the kernel deals with devices changed a great deal between 2.0.x and 2.2.x and even moreso for 2.4.x, if you've got some custom apps that work just fine on the hardware that you're using, what's the point in upgrading?
No risk of having to debug unforseen problems with running your app in a new environment.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
LK
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:5, Informative)
Can I install 2.6.1 on that system and run it? you bet I can, and with no speed loss. but I lose the knowledge that the kernel will NOT be a point of failure. Absolutely nobody can tell me the exact failure points of the 2.6 or even the 2.4 kernels. while the 2.0 kernel is completely documented and certified by the in house people here to be 99% solid. (Windows CE get's a 50% rating, a full 5% higher than windows nt,2000,xp) While QNX and BSD here are still below 80% as far as the testing people rate it... and that is what matter's to us.
Not something that a know-nothing with no credentials says in the press.... what we see in real testing over the course of a 24 month period trying to force it to fail. (Yes, even baking the board beyond operating temps...)
all this for testing a firmware for upcoming cable tv boxes and other embedded systems related to video/communication.
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:3, Informative)
What! And lose uptime! Are you nuts!
On a more serious note, for production systems, if it is not broken (eg security vulnerability) and still does what's needed, don't touch it. If you have to touch it, touch only the part that needs to be touched.
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:2)
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that 2.0.xx kernel is still getting updated with security patches and bug fixes, thanks to David; while Windows 95 is not secure, and any existing or future vulnerabilities, bugs, leaks, data loss, etc. will not be fixed by Microsoft.
On an unrelated note, David says:
Then I had a hard-disk crash in January (yes, an IBM DeathStar, of course... Heed my advice, never buy one!). While I had backups and of most of my stuff, I didn't have a backup of my lat
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:1)
reiserfs has been backported to 2.2 but the fs code in 2.0 is quite different from 2.2
I'm also kinda sad to see that nubus-ppc support
is again absent from the new linus tree.
Given that reiserfs was itself backported to 2.2
a 2.0 backport seems unlikely, but DM would be the
guy to do it
Keep up the good work
Posted with lynx, so if it looks ugly, you know why
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:2)
Werd, I think a lot of people had issues with these drives. I had a 60GB DeathStar, RMA'd only to get another used HDD (didn't bother to send me a new drive) that failed on me. Some people reported these drives were great while most hated it. I think I'll avoid IBM Hard Drives.
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:2)
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:2)
I beg to differ! I've been running a 2.2.x gateway computer for years now and it's done a heck of a job. ipmasqadm with portfw makes it a very flexable tool and there are even many other additions that allow for tunneling of some of the more tricky protocals [impsec.org].
There are plenty of reasons to run newer kernels, I would never discount any of the linux even series as a "bust".
Re:Latest and greatest not for everyone (Score:2)
Sure a new Knoppix is good and all but there isn't anything like optimized, aged code (a decade) that makes you wonder why you got that other thing that gives you problems.
The difference in a -typical- XP and 2000 install is enough on 5 year old home PC's. I've got a 333 which is flying away with distributed.net on 2000 - a good 2.0 live CD to show me a slow and difficult cu
Disagreement on your 2.2 vs. 2.4 appraisal. (Score:2)
I humbly disagree. 2.4 has been a nightmare. I don't think any other stable Linux kernel series has seen so much mid-stream fluxuation or show-stopper bugs. For quite some time it was prone to crash, we had the severe VFS bug in 2.4.11, we had VM maintainers switching out the algorithm used to allocate memory, the functionality of the cryptoapi+cryptoloop subsystems has been broken between the last 3 releases
C64 (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting (Score:2, Informative)
---
http://www.agigames.com [agigames.com]
These guys have the tools to let you make your own adventure games.
Anybody... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Anybody... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Anybody... (Score:2)
Re:Anybody... (Score:3, Informative)
Doesn't look like it. The most recent files are from April 1994.
Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom (Score:1)
Re:Freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok I can understand wanting a firebird binary thats been blessed, but really man, if you want 2.6.x download it, make menuconfig(or your favorite interface), bzimage, modules, modules-install, then copy your kernel and update lilo. Of course your probally running that new fangled grub. Back in my day we had boot loaders that knew their place and didn't read ext2 file systems. You had to reload your MBR every time you messed around wi
Re:Freedom (Score:2)
And yes, I'm using grub.
Compiling the kernel isn't the problem, although there should really just be one command that does bzImage, modules, and modules_install all together.
The problems are dependencies and things not working the same way. I bitch about Windows' failings compared to Linux as much as the next guy, but at least in Windows I can get things to work without wading through
Re:Freedom (Score:1)
Re:Freedom (Score:2)
Re:Freedom (Score:1)
Gentoo is all about choices, and the choice to run 2.6 has been available for some time now.
Re:Freedom (Score:2)
opus1 dtx # ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" emerge search development-sources
Searching...
[ Results for search key : development-sources ]
[ Applications found : 2 ]
* sys-kernel/development-sources
Latest version available: 2.6.2
Latest version installed: [ Not Installed ]
Size of downloaded files: 33,105 kB
Homepage: http://www.kernel.org/
Description: Full sources for the vanilla 2.6 kernel tree
* sys-kernel/ppc-development-sources [ Masked ]
Latest version available: 2.6
Re:Freedom (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess it depends very much what people use Linux for, and how they use their actual machines.
My Linux Box is running Mandrake 7.2 with the (mostly) same 2.2 Kernel that it came with. It doesn't need anything more. Last time I tried a new Kernel (2.2.25, I think) it broke half t
Re:Freedom (Score:2)
My point is people who want a new kernel, at least linux users I knnow in real life, usually have no problem compiling it from a tarball. I find it odd that someone who wants to use a new kernel would wait for their OS to have a prepackaged binary available for it.
Re:Freedom (Score:2)
For one thing, you'd knwo that a prepackaged binary for your specific distribution would cater for any ideosincracies that the particular distro would have.
In my case, being able to download a prepackaged binary of 2.2.25 specifically tailored for Mandrake 7.2 would be cool.
TiggsThough, to be honest, I think I'd prefer a sources package including anything specific for the Mandrake 7.2 configuration, but with the freedom of being able to recompile the bugger myself.
Re:Freedom (Score:2)
It comes with the kernel Sources. But it only came with 2.2.17 - it took me a while (finally, today!!) to find Mandrake RPMs of the source and headers of 2.2.25.
TiggsRe:Freedom (Score:2)
Re:Freedom (Score:2)
Re:Freedom (Score:2)
This was with Gentoo, Redhat, and Mandrake.
Oh yes, Debian also.
Just for the record, aside from some complaints about bdflush being used by the initscripts, and 'free' not working correctly, Redhat 8.0 works with 2.6.1.
Re:Freedom (Score:2)
Aerospace COmmunity (Score:5, Interesting)
We really have to be thankful that people maintain the older versions!
Re:Aerospace COmmunity (Score:2)
With many embedded systems there is little reason to use the "latest and greatest" in terms of either hardware or software. Especially since the newer stuff is likely to be more complex, more power hungry and more like
Re:Aerospace COmmunity (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux does not do the bare minimum! It does FAR FAR more than a fly-by-wire system would ever need. So,you say, we just disable that when we do "make config". Ah, but what if there are interactions with code which you've just disabled? (It happens. It shouldn't but it does happen).
And don't give me any shit about Linux being tested by
Here's how to tell which (Score:2)
His post isn't very reader-friendly (it makes grossly implausible statements apparantly unwittingly, and includes no specific names or facts that could be verified by the skeptical or researched by the curious), it is very moderator-friendly (the author is pro-Linux and makes vague claims of being a professional in a technical field), and it comes from someone in a deep karma rut [slashdot.org]. My money is on "lying".
Re:Aerospace COmmunity (Score:2)
Re:Aerospace COmmunity (Score:4, Informative)
The bottom line is cost. This has opened up many doors for experimental aircraft as well.
Re:Aerospace COmmunity (Score:4, Insightful)
What would you rather have - some old NT kernel that nobody even thinks about or 2.2 linux kernel actively updated for security issues, even if it is a 14 year old?
I rest my case.
Re:Aerospace COmmunity (Score:2)
2.0 kernel -- my bad, *cough*
Re:Aerospace COmmunity (Score:5, Insightful)
But really, Linux isn't a consumer OS. Linux is a kernel frequently used in consumer OSes. This means its been tested by a _lot_ of people, and is that much more stable as a result. There is nothing particularly consumerish about the kernel itself (certainly not the 2.0 kernel), and aerospace companies can easily just configure without consumer-oriented features.
I fail to see why you think open source software is somehow less able to protect human life than proprietary software.
Your life in a computers hands (Score:3, Insightful)
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,
Re:Aerospace COmmunity (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope. Actually, many people developing open source software do it BECAUSE they care for quality. They're trying to find the optimal solution for a problem, even if it takes some time. Compare that to someone working at a software company, constantly chased by deadlines and stupid bosses breathing down his neck. Now THAT is an environment which produces "I don't care" attitudes.
And since the original poster said that the open source software they us
Re:Aerospace COmmunity (Score:2)
The software industry is undisciplined, reckless and outright dangerous. Open source software tends to be no better at first cut, but where concerns that a proprietary software company might drag their f
Re:Aerospace COmmunity (Score:5, Insightful)
So a non-consumer OS should be used?
Here is an example of custom software [ncl.ac.uk] causing a crash.
With aircraft systems becopming more and more complex, it does give one pause as to what could happen if there was a "blue screen" or "kernal panic".
IMHO, it doesn't matter what software is used. If it is engineered poorly, it will perform poorly. One would hope that any critical system that relies on software would "fail gracefully", but with budget pressures on a project anything can happen.
A well-tested "consumer" OS can be a lot better than completely untested custom software.
Poor software, like poor concrete, will crumble, no matter where it comes from.
Re:Aerospace COmmunity (Score:2)
You appear to be confusing Linux with Commercial Off The Shelf. The latter tends to equate to building a bespoke system on top of a proprietary OS. Whereas what you get with Linux is software you can use to build a "consumer OS" as well as any other kind of OS.
Re:Aerospace COmmunity (Score:2)
In many cases "professional" and "proprietary" almost appear to be mutually exclusive.
The fact that some 14 year old's kernel patch is under the hood of a 100 ton hunk of metal holding me 6 miles in the air is scary at the least.
No matter who wrote it the software is likely to have been examined by engineers who know about flight control systems. Quite a few aircraft pioneers started young, it's not
Great to know (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Great to know (Score:1, Insightful)
No, sir. By 2.0.40 pre1 the exploit is fixed. So, currently there is no exploits at all... zilch... nada.
Re:Great to know (Score:2)
I'll be updating to 2.0.40-pre... of course
Re:Great to know (Score:3, Interesting)
Uptime: well in excess of 400 days
Kernel: 2.0.39
Why fix it if it isn't broken ?
Re:Great to know (Score:3, Informative)
test it and see for yourself
Re:Great to know (Score:2)
Damn thing just refused to die. It had an uptime in excess of 500 days (my record, 523), when some moron pulled the power cord out of the back by mistake (I still blame you Nik!).
When I booted that box up, the twin towers were standing, Enron was still in business, The Taleban still ran Afganistan and The GameCube and Xbox had yet to be released.
How time, up and in general, flies.
Who's using it... (Score:5, Funny)
There's you're answer to "who's using it"... Debian!
I have to admit, I suspected it all along...
Re:Who's using it... (Score:2)
Re:Who's using it... (Score:4, Funny)
That newfangled 2.0 kernel? Maybe for those bleeding-edge folks using unstable, but I think Woody still uses a hamster wheel attached to an abacus.
Cheers,
IT
Re:Who's using it... (Score:1)
I think the official woody kernel is still 2.2.x. If you want to get bleeding edge then they do have 2.4 kernels available. They even have a 2.4 boot floppies for those of us with hardware too new to be supported by 2.2. I guess I'm not complaining. I helped someone setup Debian and I made sure he stuck with stable because he was always bitching about Mand
Re:Who's using it... (Score:1)
Yeah, yeah, I know, the new bind integrates with DHCP better, and tons of other things, but the little scripts I scavenged off of LDP are working great to this day... So much so, I have completely forgotten about those boxes till this story...
Good systems never get noticed...
Re:Who's using it... (Score:2)
There's you're answer to "who's using it"... Debian! I have to admit, I suspected it all along...Your joke made me think "Hey! Maybe Debian does still support 2.0! It would be really cool to apt-get install kernel-image-2.0.39 and see how it runs". Unfortunately, it's not in any of the current Debian repositories. Bummer...
Conservative (Score:1)
Re:Conservative (Score:2)
ha thats it, I betcha Debian Stable will be upgrading to 2.0 any day now.
Speaking of kernel news... (Score:5, Informative)
Looking for a job? (Score:5, Insightful)
How come that such a skilled person with enough references can't find a job?
Re:Looking for a job? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Looking for a job? (Score:2)
Reading that made me decide to abandon the idea of getting a job in the CS/IT field, let alone in something system administration related. If he can't cut it, what makes me think I have a chance?
Unless, of course, he just hasn't found the 'right' job yet, or he's not really looking. Still...
Re:Looking for a job? (Score:3, Informative)
the days when you could get a cs/it-job as coding html/css is over ( been there, done that, im also studying cs, but i guess i lack in the "patching-the-kernel"-department... perhaps i should take up kernel 1.0
Re:Looking for a job? (Score:5, Interesting)
We (my company, I dont personally recruit people) are not looking for the most brilliant and ambitious people out there. We employ those who have exactly the right level of skills. Sounds strange, but when the times changes, if you have employed over-qualified people they will demand higher salaries, more interesting duties, and maybe they will leave nevertheless. Being overqualified is as bad as being underqualified.
Unfortunately, these days companies are not working with new cool upstart projects that they need smart entrepreneurs and geeks for - they rather work with streamlining their (organisational) processes, and maintanance.
Also, they dont want to really employ someone (if they do, they see it as a strategic decision). The rather hire a consultant or "Manpower"-guy. (This might primarily be true for Sweden).
I am not saying erasing merits from your CV will increase your chances, but the fact that someone else with more skills do not get a job does not automatically imply you wont.
Work experience is always valuable though (unless perhaps you are 55+).
Re:Looking for a job? (Score:2)
Also, I replied to someone saying that "If he does not get a job I will never get a job". It is not like everybody stands in a queue, and the smartest people stand first in that queue.
Re:Looking for a job? (Score:2)
Just out of curiosity, you dont live in a socialistic country, do you?
In Sweden, the laws and regulations for employment are so complex (and very socialistic also) that most things that should be common sense in reality are just plain w
Re:Looking for a job? (Score:2, Informative)
He (that'd be yours truly) got unemployed only a month ago, so I've been busy doing other things.
Re:Looking for a job? (Score:2)
I mean c'mon, make up your fucking mind! Which skills do you actually need? (Sorry, I'm bitter right now... Apple fucked up my repair, and I may never see my powerbook again. Bastards.)
Re:Looking for a job? (Score:2)
suggest, please (Score:2)
very interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:very interesting (Score:3, Informative)
There were a lot security related bugs fixedin 2.4 in the same period. 2.4.23 was put out only for a security relevant patch. Another bug was fixed in 2.4.21 that later turned out to have been exploited in the Debian compromise. Local root exploits are not rare, unfortunately. If you also count the local-DoS (i.e., non-root user can cause kern
OT,but someone has to make the [NO CARRIER] joke (Score:2, Funny)
How about 2.2? (Score:2)
Re:How about 2.2? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How about 2.2? (Score:2, Informative)
They have kernel "2.2.25-3-SECURE", updated August 20, 2003.
Too Cool (Score:1)
keep up the good work.
Usage statistics for the 2.0 kernel (Score:2)
According to the version monitoring page at the Linux Counter [li.org], 35 out of the 4862 monitored machines run the 2.0 kernel - 0.7% of the total number of monitored machines.
If that holds true for the (who knows???) 20 million Linux machines out there in the wild, there should be something like 142000 2.0-kernel Linux boxes out there. Perhaps more - the "enthusiasts" who register with the Linux Counter may be more prone to upgrading
passwd/group tools (Score:2)
I thought one of the most interesting things in the articles is a collection of tools he mentioned for passwd/group management.
==snip==
A lot is left to be done; so far I'm only at v0.1.1, and the following commands have been implemented (complete with manual-pages):
{ls,ch,mk,rm}user
{ls,ch}age
{ls,ch,mk,rm}group
chgrpmem
{vi,cp}pw
chfn
chsh
My first aim is not to compete with passwd, but rather to be able to replace it on my own systems. At a l
Freesco (Score:2)
Re:Typical open-source programmer (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Typical open-source programmer (Score:5, Interesting)
If a kernel maintainer can't find a programming job then the programming profession is pretty much destroyed already.
Re:Typical open-source programmer (Score:2)
Yes, because we all know that anyone capable of maintaining an old Linux kernel must, by definition, be the world's most talented programmer.
Or perhaps there are other reasons why he doesn't have a job. Perhaps he lacks a degree from a four year institution. Perhaps he has the primadonna attitude many "superstar programmers" have. Maybe he has very poor social skills, which leads him to
Re:Typical open-source programmer (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Typical open-source programmer (Score:4, Funny)
Re:2.0 kernel? WHO GIVES A SHIT! (Score:2)