Andrew Morton posted a lengthy list of items that need to be done before the 2.5 development kernel tree should be turned into the 2.6 stable kernel tree. He prefaced his list by noting that 2.6.0 does not mean, “it’s finished, ship it“, alternatively offering, “I’d propose that 2.6.0 means that users can migrate from 2.4.x with a good expectation that everything which they were using in 2.4 will continue to work, and that the kernel doesn’t crash, doesn’t munch their data and doesn’t run like a dog. Other definitions are welcome.“
The Must-Fix List For 2.6.0
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Besides not crashing, not eating my data and not running like a dog, 2.6.x will have to give me a very good reason to make me ¨take the plunge¨.
Otherwise I´ll just stick to 2.4.x. It´s not perfect, but in general it works well and I know its quirks.
So, Andrew, please also prepare a list of reasons why people **should** use 2.6
well would you prefer if he hadn’t started the debate, i think what Andrew is trying to prevent is another fiasco like what happened when 2.4 was released. he want’s to get all the show-stopper bugs stomped. i don’t see 2.6 coming out for at least 6months myself.
Besides not crashing, not eating my data and not running like a dog, 2.6.x will have to give me a very good reason to make me “take the plunge”.
For the average end user, the main benefit would be the work that has gone into improving interactive desktop performance. But then again, you can already enjoy some of the fruits of that labour by way of Con Kolivas’ patches to 2.4: http://kernel.kolivas.net/
Anyway, post this question over on Kerneltrap, and you’re bound to get some good replies as several Linux hackers frequent that site.
I think I’ll sit back and watch the bugstomping, at least until I get UserMode Linux working. There is still a lot of
work to be done for 2.6 but it looks like they are bustin’ their chops to get it right.
Way to go, guys!!!!
2.2 was stable
2.4 was a transitionary kernel. It was good for trying several experimental schedulers and rewriting major things that needed it. SCSI? I don’t remember.
2.6 might possibly be another stable kernel. Have to wait and see. At least we know they got the scheduler stabilized a bit.
As dynamic and chaotic as the kernel is I am very impressed that I got less than 2 kernel panics in the last year. The one I got the other day I’m sure was caused entirely by hardware, but I still consider that a kernel panic. My system shouldn’t crash unless its CPU or RAM stop working. I don’t care if it loses its root drive and swap and half its IDE subsystem to a nuclear strike. It better not panic right in front of me when I know that CPU is quite healthy!
how about adding WORKING —GASP— OUT OF THE BOX 802.11B Atmel drivers. Linux will be on a lot more computers if the WUSB11 Rev 2.6 (x503A chipsets) were detected and driven properly just like every other driver.
This is the ONLY REASON i’m not using linux on my laptop.
I’ve put 2.5.68 on my test box and there is a definate improvement in the feel of X apps while running compiles in the background.
A few strange problems though…
I can’t launch terminals in X without getting
‘ptsname no such file or directory
Can’t open a psudo teletype’
And can’t get the unified zoran driver to compile with it, which is a shame as I would like to see if video capture performance has improved with V4L2 and the new schedular.
I would think we are getting close to 2.6 though, if even I can get it installed and running without major problems.