I forgot to mention the venerable MuLinux. I used to dabble with it on an old machine. It's floppy based too and very feature rich. It was out there back in 98 when I started. It still uses the 2.0.x series of kernels, so it's not up to date by any means. For an old laptop or desktop it's not too bad though. VNC is on one of the disks you can build. That's how I found out about that fine tool ages ago. Check it out. http://mulinux.sunsite.dk/
Brian Kelsay
what are the advantages of using linux 2.0 kernels? The series is still being updated -- Are the memory requirements really low? Is it easier to hack on than the later versions? Are there hard limits, such as disk size or number of processes or ports?
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 12:57:17 -0600, Brian Kelsay brian.kelsay@kcc.usda.gov wrote:
I forgot to mention the venerable MuLinux. I used to dabble with it on an old machine. It's floppy based too and very feature rich. It was out there back in 98 when I started. It still uses the 2.0.x series of kernels, so it's not up to date by any means. For an old laptop or desktop it's not too bad though. VNC is on one of the disks you can build. That's how I found out about that fine tool ages ago. Check it out. http://mulinux.sunsite.dk/
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, David Nicol wrote:
what are the advantages of using linux 2.0 kernels? The series is still being updated -- Are the memory requirements really low? Is it easier to hack on than the later versions? Are there hard limits, such as disk size or number of processes or ports?
I remember configuration was much easier, not to mention compile time.
It might be possible to forgo all the modern featuers of the newer kernels for the tight binary of the 2.0.x days. Its still good to see the old series still maintained.
2.0.x were motorcycles. 2.6.x are like a fleet of Mac trucks.
-=Duane http://dattaway.org
2.0 lacks a very large number of posix traits. It also has a lot of smp issues. I came in around 2.1.33 so i missed the 2.0 days. Memory management is one area that sucked upuntil the release of 2.4
On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 15:37 -0600, David Nicol wrote:
what are the advantages of using linux 2.0 kernels? The series is still being updated -- Are the memory requirements really low? Is it easier to hack on than the later versions? Are there hard limits, such as disk size or number of processes or ports?
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 12:57:17 -0600, Brian Kelsay brian.kelsay@kcc.usda.gov wrote:
I forgot to mention the venerable MuLinux. I used to dabble with it on an old machine. It's floppy based too and very feature rich. It was out there back in 98 when I started. It still uses the 2.0.x series of kernels, so it's not up to date by any means. For an old laptop or desktop it's not too bad though. VNC is on one of the disks you can build. That's how I found out about that fine tool ages ago. Check it out. http://mulinux.sunsite.dk/
Kclug mailing list Kclug@kclug.org http://kclug.org/mailman/listinfo/kclug
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 15:37:30 -0600 David Nicol davidnicol@gmail.com wrote:
what are the advantages of using linux 2.0 kernels? The series is still being updated -- Are the memory requirements really low? Is it easier to hack on than the later versions? Are there hard limits, such as disk size or number of processes or ports?
From what I've seen the 2.0 and 2.2 series are only still being maintained to help companies and users that for one reason or another can't upgrade. If I was starting a new project, server, etc I would go with the latest and avoid the older kernels.
Memory requirements are lower, hacking would be about the same, and a bunch of limits.
Unless you're trying to use an application that requires a 2.0 or 2.2 kernel or you're dealing in the embedded space I can't think of a single advantage to using an older kernel.
--------------------------------- Frank Wiles frank@wiles.org http://www.wiles.org ---------------------------------
one review claimed that the 2.6 series is slower on old hardware.
I guess I'll set up old-style ext2 on the box in question and make up some benchmarks. Keeping open file descriptors below 256 should not be that tough of a constraint, or I'll expand it... maybe not...
BSD 5.3 did not get along well at all with the 3c509 on the box in question, perhaps BSD 4 or earlier would.
On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 11:18:24 -0600, Frank Wiles frank@wiles.org wrote:
From what I've seen the 2.0 and 2.2 series are only still being maintained to help companies and users that for one reason or another can't upgrade. If I was starting a new project, server, etc I would go with the latest and avoid the older kernels.
Memory requirements are lower, hacking would be about the same, and a bunch of limits.
Unless you're trying to use an application that requires a 2.0 or 2.2 kernel or you're dealing in the embedded space I can't think of a single advantage to using an older kernel.
-
Brian Kelsay -
David Nicol -
Duane Attaway -
Frank Wiles -
Thomas Bruno