What is Digg?49 Comments
- Hydraulix, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27Everyone assumes that if you are running kernel 2.4 you must have a older system. While for personal systems I agree. But, I can attest that we have over 1200 servers in our data center running 2.4. Why? Because a lot of software doesn't work right with 2.6, some proprietary hardware doesn't work right with 2.6, and finally if it's not broke, don't fix it concept is in full effect. Don't get me wrong, I've been pushing for us to use 2.6 for a while now. And, on some boxes we have 2.6 running. But, I'm very glad that 2.4 is still being maintained today.
- kupo313, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Nice use of a, comma.
- Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Simple:
2.4 is stable. 2.6 is not quite yet. Not to mention that 2.4 is easier on the system. Essentially, if you're not doing fancy graphical ***** (ie: running a server), 2.4 gives you hardware investment more bang for your buck. Security patches an maintenance are a Good Thing (tm). - eplawless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Windows = Ford Prefect?
I feel left out of this analogy. - elroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5i'll take a stab at "proving it", too... this logic works for quite a bit of software, especially in the open source community:
when a new branch is released (in this case, linux 2.6), the developers will often continue the old branches but keep feature additions to a minimum, focusing mostly on bug fixes.
why? think about it: imagine you're responsible for maintaining a server that, if it goes down for extended periods of time, you get fired and/or sued. it's already been running linux 2.4.x for some time without issues. a new version of 2.4 comes out and it has some security and bug fixes, but otherwise is the same. would you make the upgrade to 2.6, which may or may not work, or keep with 2.4 which you KNOW works, but will just have the bugs fixed? unless there's some feature you cannot live without (ie, will get fired if you don't provide it) -- it's best to stick with what works, and just apply bug/security fixes.
another example of this... apache still maintains 1.3.x branch even though 2.0.x is out. a lot of websites don't want to potentially break their site by upgrading to 2.0 when 1.3 is working just fine for them -- but they may want to address a recent security flaw exposed in 1.3 by upgrading to the latest version in the 1.3 branch, which they know will work with their existing configuration. - elroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Yeah, there's a few big improvements for things other than "fancy graphical *****"... 2.6 task scheduler runs in constant time... very useful for, say, running a server with a lot of simultaneous connections.
But, as was mentioned -- lots of administrators don't upgrade until there's a feature that they NEED. In certain applications, stability is more important than features. - lolwtfhaha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@Fordl
Not so simple. 2.6 has been shown to be tremendously faster than 2.4, on the same hardware. That's bang for buck:
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-web26/
I can't think of any reason not to use 2.6 kernels on servers. edit; then again I stick with debian stable kernels (2.6.8 currently) :-) - Hydraulix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5wtf are you talking about? 2.4 and 2.6 are split between the devs. If anything, you could say that since 2.6 is out and about, then the 2.4 devs will lose interest. But, since neither of these statements are true, you get buried.
- mickoes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Windows = Lada
- marnaq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Windows XP: http://www.democracycellproject.net/blog/archives/Clown%20car.jpg
- Phocion55, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Wow....you can use Photoshop. Want a cookie?
- celticeric, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually, all even numbered increments - 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6 - are stable production ready kernels. Odd numbered increments such as 2.5 or 2.7 are development kernels where new but potentially buggy features are tested.
- golgotha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Not just for older systems, but the 2.4 kernel has now been considered stable enough for Debian stable users to upgrade from 2.2.
It's funny. Laugh.
Ya, I remember the 2.4 kernel. I miss the 90's. - FoxFaction, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Windows ME: Yugo
- elroy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It's on digg because it's news.
- drag, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are still 2 major distros that use 2.4 by default.. Debian Sarge and Slackware.
The reason you support 2.4 like this is because there is NO point to upgrading a server to 2.6 kernel if you don't have to. If you have a server that has been around or you have a old desktop that is working fine.. why mess around with it?
Sure you can possibly get better performance out of 2.6, but realy people's time is worth more then some minor boost in old hardware. In the real world stuff that 'just works' is much more valuable then something that requires effort, but works slightly faster. - satempler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I didn't know kernel 2.4 was still maintained. Guess its good for older systems,
- MWeather, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What applications? I've never run across one that didn't work with 2.6
- rmccs0x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@mweather
we have a few enterprise apps that still only work with 2.4x. one being one of the real media streaming server products. - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can block the Linux/Unix section you know but then you wouldn't be able to masturbate over replies to your trolling.
- 21chrisp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"You obviously don't know what stability is, then."
I know that I've used 2.6 in production for two years now without anything unusual happening. 2 servers had hardware failures, but that's not the kernel's fault. Maybe it will be proven stable enough by the time we're all dead... - linuxinit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2To each his own, that's the beauty of open source. :)
- linuxinit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@bofh:
well if that vehicle needed to be fueled *by* goat cheese, then goat cheese would be more stable than petrol for that particular vehicle. i don't see your point... - baalzebub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1i still use the 2.4.xx kernel, it handles all my hardware just fine, and has a smaller & lighter foot print than a 2.6.xx kernel,
i am sure Linus Torvalds will keep polishing the 2.6.xx kernel until it runs just as good or maybe better than the 2.4.xx series kernels... - rmccs0x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12.6x is the current stable kernel, period.
many applications will only work on the 2.4x kernel unfortunately, so too many kernel hackers are still working w/ 2.4x rather than 2.6x - GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes kernel releases are big news. TBH I'd be worried if a new kernel release didn't make it onto digg since the kernel is crucial to the entire system. Admittedly 2.4 releases are probably less important to the general public than 2.6. 2.4 is still important but those it is important to will know about a release without digg anyway.
- GMorgan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even the kernel devs have admitted that the 2.6 kernel needs a stability fix only release. Personally I think problems are rare and limited to only a few hardware configuration and most involve binary only drivers. We can and should do better even than this though. 2.6 is more than good enough in most circumstances. If you were absolutely paranoid about stability you'd probably go BSD rather than 2.4 anyway, 2.4 exists mainly for legacy reasons though its still a capable system.
- linuxinit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0actually it'd probably be easier to save the html locally and edit it than take a screenshot, cut, paste, blur, etc... ;) :P
- bofh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What?
2.6 doesn't support (some random device), so somehow it's unstable? Try again. - rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1OS/2 = Delorian
Commodore = Willys
FreeBSD = Hybrid - sark666, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Also 2.4 has better memory management when the system is under stress.
I have an old box (p 1.6 but only 128 megs of ram). I used to play enemy territory on it. On 2.4 maps would take about 30 secs to load. On 2.6 it would take 30 secs for the first map, then 45, then 60, them 93, then into minutes until I was kicked off the server.
I tried compiling my own 2.6, using the distro's version and even installing another distro that came with 2.6. They all performed the same. But 2.4 just kept chugging along. And I don't think this is anything specific with the game. If your swap is really being stressed, 2.4 wins. - ntufar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1OS/360 = Ford Model T
- drag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Linux distros (example Debian) = A 18 ton tank with 10 inch thick steel plating that goes 0-160 in 7 seconds with a top speed of 300 mph. It is also amphibious, can submarine, and also flies at will.
Unfortunately the interior is constructed out of plywood. It's all glued on with 'liquid nails', but nothing has been allowed to dry yet and ***** keeps falling off the walls. The bucket seats are literally buckets and the controls are upside down and not labelled. But it does include it's own welding kit so that you can build different sorts of tracks for different sorts of roads when you feel like it.
Windows = The family cruiser station wagon from "National Lampoon's Family Vacation". It has some armor glued on, the interior is a bit ackward but most people know their way around, and it has a tank cannon you can duck tape to the top and if you spend a few more thousand dollars you can get a jet booster pack mounted to the luggage rack (watch out for trees and hillsides). If you have the media edition it comes with a built in monitor and a vcr that can play certain types of tapes if you arrange them correctly in the trunk. It weighs in a 32 tons.
The new 'Vista Wagon' has controls that are transparent in some places. Unfortunately the (mis)feature people will notice the most after they get tired of seeing the windows slightly sideways will be the 1979-style smog prevention add-ons called 'DRM'.
(car analogs suck) - cawpin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@kupo313 - It's called a qualifier, ass. Hey, look! There's more!
- cpiliotis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Actually, I've found we've encountered some serious stability issues with 2.6... We've seen quite a few Kernel panics - not a good sign IMO... ***** happens of course, but server bounces generally suck...
- bofh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'm not claiming 2.6 isn't stable - it's my kernel of choice.
I was replying to the comment "2.4 doesn't support some newer hardware, and 2.6 does, so on my hardware, 2.6 is more stable."
That's like saying my car is an unreliable hunk of metal because it doesn't support being fueled my goats cheese. - drag, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0well since you loved that one so much. I'll try it again.
Windows 98 =
http://www2.uol.com.br/bestcars/carros/ford/antigos/pinto-74.jpg
Windows ME =
http://www.decodesystems.com/gremlin-premier.jpg
Windows 2000 =
http://www.richardsfault.com/Rochester81/02-Dandelion_Day/1970_Ford_Country_Squire.jpg
Windows XP SP2 = http://www.chooseyouritem.com/classics/photos/105500/105925.1978.Ford.LTD.Country.Squire.4-Door.Station.Wagon.10.Pass.jpg
Windows Vista =
http://www.ajga.org/Newsletter/TheAJGALink/8-5-05/images/Truckster.jpg
Linux =
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ddHPc6hdgw
OS X =
http://deloreanowners.org/images/pic1.jpg - PlaidPhantom, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1IBM PC BASIC: steam car.
- lolwtfhaha, on 10/12/2007, -8/+6apparently not very far ;-) edit; everyone knows the 2.2 series is the "stable" one :-P
- FreakyPhil31, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Maybe Orville Reddenbacher would know which kernel is best but, alas, he is dead...r.i.p.
- the_y_man, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3AFAIK The 2.4 tree is the "stable" one, mostly bug fixes and only proven-tried and tested features are added.
- bofh, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1You obviously don't know what stability is, then.
- dkoon, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2jeez I thought Linux is Perfect! What are these fixes for?
- pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Even numbered kernels (2.2, 2.4, 2.6) were traditionally stable, but this now holds no significance. All kernels are now unstable.
- WorldGroove, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1What makes you think that? And you see that link lolwtfhaha posted above?
- trustnone, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I always try to explain this with an analogy.
2.6 = Porsche Cayenne (i,e all the bells and whistles but still some kinks that need to be ironed out)
2.4 = Porsche 911 (Tough, rugged and Time tested) - linuxinit, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Why the hell is this on digg? Are we going to start posting with every new kernel release? I mean come on... The kernel is updated at least once per week to stable; both the 2.4 and 2.6 branches.
But yea, if you say 2.4 is more stable than 2.6, I say prove it. 2.4 doesn't support some newer hardware, and 2.6 does, so on my hardware, 2.6 is more stable. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -13/+2The more news like this gets promoted, the less motivation the devs have to work on 2.6. Buried.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
