Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Linux 2.4 Kernel May Finally Go End-Of-Life

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,644

    Default Linux 2.4 Kernel May Finally Go End-Of-Life

    Phoronix: Linux 2.4 Kernel May Finally Go End-Of-Life

    While we are always getting excited for the next Linux 2.6 kernel release (heck, we are barely halfway through the Linux 2.6.36 kernel development and we are already getting excited for Linux 2.6.37 with its driver improvements), but sometimes it can be easy to forget that there is still a maintained Linux 2.4 kernel. The Linux 2.6 kernel has been around for nearly seven years and is used by all new Linux distribution updates, but there's lots of enterprise and embedded devices running off this old kernel. The Linux 2.4 kernel though may have just reached an end-of-life state with the just-released Linux 2.4.37.10 kernel...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODU4NA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    77

    Default

    So... If he gets a critical fix, does that mean he pushes back the one-year mark to after the release of .11?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,118

    Default

    I provoke everyone to find a more mundane job than the maintenance of the 2.4 kernel...

    (the maintenace of 2.0 does not count as an answer...)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Kinda sounds like a "I'll maintain it if I feel like it or of somebody else really wants me to". This way if nobody is interested after a long time he doesn't have to feel obligated to get it up to snuff in an "officially supported" way.

    Probably a ton of cheap embedded crap made in $AsianCountry shipping with kernels old even by 2.4 standards which never get updated by either end-users or manufacturers. They probably won't even notice that it's not being maintained.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    I provoke everyone to find a more mundane job than the maintenance of the 2.4 kernel...

    (the maintenace of 2.0 does not count as an answer...)
    I was gonna say maintainer of obscure 30-year-old GNU utilities such as ed or M4 - but the only thing worse than old and crufty is old, crufty, and huge.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    I provoke everyone to find a more mundane job than the maintenance of the 2.4 kernel...

    (the maintenace of 2.0 does not count as an answer...)
    Heh well Popular Science did list these jobs as the worst in science:

    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...obs18_ST_N.htm

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smorg View Post
    Kinda sounds like a "I'll maintain it if I feel like it or of somebody else really wants me to". This way if nobody is interested after a long time he doesn't have to feel obligated to get it up to snuff in an "officially supported" way.

    Probably a ton of cheap embedded crap made in $AsianCountry shipping with kernels old even by 2.4 standards which never get updated by either end-users or manufacturers. They probably won't even notice that it's not being maintained.



    I was gonna say maintainer of obscure 30-year-old GNU utilities such as ed or M4 - but the only thing worse than old and crufty is old, crufty, and huge.
    OpenVMS 8.4 was released recently, it has full IPv6 support and runs the latest version of apache. I'm testing with it now.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frantaylor View Post
    OpenVMS 8.4 was released recently, it has full IPv6 support and runs the latest version of apache. I'm testing with it now.
    Sounds like lots of fun.

    /sarcasm off

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    989

    Default

    Hey, I used Linux 2.4 for at least a year or two when I was just starting out with Linux. It was the tried-and-true kernel at that time; ordinary users were discouraged from trying the brand-spanking-new-and-often-broken 2.6. I'm sure some smart ass will come by and mention how they tried Linus' initial release of the kernel the microsecond he released it, but at least I can say that I have used two different release series of the kernel while each respective series was the prominent recommended kernel. That said, I don't really remember the times before 2.6.0 was even released... that was right on the periphery of when I first heard about Linux...

    I remember 2.4 as being pretty darn good, in fact. Except for advanced hardware support like wireless and graphics, it was quite good at making efficient use of CPU, RAM, DMA, 100 Mbps networking, process/thread management, etc. There have definitely been improvements in 2.6 and micro revisions thereof, but most of the groundwork for the kernel we enjoy today was already there in 2.4.

    I think 2.6 is here to stay, though, until some major fundamental change in the hardware ecosystem forces a major re-thinking of concepts. I'm not sure what such a change would look like, but candidates might include quantum computing, or major revisions to the layout of the system if we stick with silicon. It would have to be more revolutionary than eliminating the FSB, though, since 2.6 gently evolved to support the Nehalem architecture and its rather significant departures from the past 10-15 years of computer architecture.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    Hey, I used Linux 2.4 for at least a year or two when I was just starting out with Linux. It was the tried-and-true kernel at that time; ordinary users were discouraged from trying the brand-spanking-new-and-often-broken 2.6. I'm sure some smart ass will come by and mention how they tried Linus' initial release of the kernel the microsecond he released it, but at least I can say that I have used two different release series of the kernel while each respective series was the prominent recommended kernel. That said, I don't really remember the times before 2.6.0 was even released... that was right on the periphery of when I first heard about Linux...
    He, me too. I started with SuSE 8.0 that included the 2.4.18 kernel (I had to google it), although I had SuSE 6 somewhere from a computers convention that I never used.
    It's great to see how much things have evolved.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by allquixotic View Post
    candidates might include quantum computing, or major revisions to the layout of the system if we stick with silicon.
    You aren't trying to suggest that one couldn't engineer a silicon-based quantum computer, are you? You probably mean if we stick with BINARY. Being binary or quantum isn't necessarily linked to the particular material used to implement it.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •