“For desktops, the 2.4 version of the kernel is just fine. If you have heavy-duty processing needs, 2.4 has been a series of disappointments. Sysadmins of big iron have two choices — go back in time or play upgrade hopscotch. Both have problems. Let’s start from the beginning. In July 2001, I was responsible for upgrading a customer’s server from Red Hat 6.2 to Mandrake 8.0. The machine was built from scratch, and Mandrake was installed onto a freshly formatted RAID 5 array. We then migrated the Red Hat 6.2 applications to the new machine.” Read the rest of the story at InfoWorld.
The 2.4.x Kernel of Pain
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Wait until he starts the .so dance while trying to get KDE 2.2.1 running. Dont forget the Alsa tango. Hmm, I seem to be forgetting something. Oh yes, the XFree4.1 lambada. That just sums it all up. No, wait, the DRI & Mesa mambo.
Great, now I’ve got a usable desktop OS. Time to visit Freshmeat … Dance the night away.
Who in their right minds upgrades a server from a well established Kernel (2.2.18 or somthing) to a NEW OS that is not only in a young kernel development, but a X.0 release!!!! this guy should have been fired on the spot!!!!
no research into what problems they are having, nothing.
sorry, but the kernel may be in “Stable” condition, but it is by no means bullet proof, especialy at the begining of the series. any GOOD sys admin will know that you should wait untill x.y.14 or higher, usualy when Linus leaves to go develop the next installment….at that point, you can go and deploy the next ditrobution release to use the lates kernel after the one that Linus put into maintainence.
god what an idiot…..and thenhe placed it on Mandrake of all distrobutions……the worst when it comes to stable Server environments…..stick with RH or debian……stupid, stupid, stupid!!!!
Jeremy:
When someone buys something, they expect it to work. Since when has the customer been responsible if a given Linux distribution crashes left and right. I am sick and tired of Linux “advocates” giving Linux a bad name by flaming anyone who dares say that their precious Linux is less than perfect.
That said, RedHat is a better choice than Mandrake for a server OS; Mandrake concentrates more on the desktop end of things; and RedHat performs extensive testing and tuning on their kernels before making them available on their server relases.
Debian is a good choice too, but their philosophy is that “stable” is just that–been out for a year or two, and extensively tested over the internet. The disadvantage: The software is less cutting-edge.
– Sam
Hmmm… This might be the reason why Yahoo and others prefer FreeBSD,
which seems to be way more stable and has more mature VM and scheduler…
A simple case of Linux trying to grow too fast. Linux has NO direction. Group “A” is trying to make it better for desktops, Group “B” is trying to make it hackerproof, Group “C” is trying to make it faster . . .
Well, since Linux has been in the “limelight” how has this worked out? It hasn’t. Red Hat 5.x had nice average install of about 2-300MB, just short time later, Red Hat 7.x’s average install is around 1GB. (I know RH isn’t the only Linux or even the best, but roughly the same can be said for all popular distros). Your average Distros install size has more than doubled in the past year or two. The average SPEED of Linux distros has REALLY slowed down. Mandrake 8.x and SuSE 7.x run like a DOG on a 700MHZ Duron, but their older 5.x versions were smoking fast on a P233. So its a little prettier and supports a few more devices. The BLOAT outweighs any advantages it has gained. I guess if I want to run Linux with a medium to full install I better be saving for a 2GHZ P4 with 2.5GB RAM just so it’ll run at a decent speed. I yes I know the tweaks and tricks and how to recompile the kernel to speed things up and it helps, just not enough. RH, Open, SUSE, MANDRAKE, DEBIAN and SLACKWARE are all slow and bloated.
VM doesn’t work right??!?!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!??!?!?
Do you have any idea what kind of flaming would take place if VM in the kernel of WinNT didn’t work? Say what you want about Windows, but at least the core components work! Maybe Explorer is a hog, or the UI isn’t configurable enough for you, or GDI development is a pain in the ass compared to QT, but the KERNEL?!?!?!?!?!
Here is my callenge: baring hardware failure (that includes lousy 3rd party drivers), I challenge one person to show me a Win2K machine which has crashed because of a bug in the kernel. I’m not talking about a crash in Kernel32.dll. Anyone can do that by writing a ring 0 app and futzing around in memory. I’m talking about disk I/O, VMM, threading/scheduling.
Eugenia, would you please post this challenge? I want to see what kind of response I can get.
Jeremy
Who in their right minds upgrades a server from a well established Kernel (2.2.18 or somthing) to a NEW OS that is not only in a young kernel development, but a X.0 release!!!! this guy should have been fired on the spot!!!!
Why does Linux have to be so damned complicated? Why can’t I just buy a computer, install Linux, and have it work?!?
…any GOOD sys admin will know that you should wait untill x.y.14 or higher, usualy when Linus leaves to go develop the next installment….at that point, you can go and deploy the next ditrobution release to use the lates kernel after the one that Linus put into maintainence.
This kills me. The rules are so ARBITRARY!! Who made the decision that even numbered releases would be more stable than odd numbered releases? How is a user off the street supposed to know this stuff?? They don’t even know what a ‘kernel’ is!! Linux is *definitely* not ready for the desktop. It is an administration/setup nightmare in comparison with MacOS/Windows/BeOS. At least FreeBSD has the grace to admit that it is a development/hacker/server platform, and not designed for Gramma. I mean cummon’, any point release of the kernel should just work. That goes for any established operating system. If the kernel has flaws, it obviously isn’t ready for a realease. Am I wrong?
HE IS A FRIGEN SYS ADMIN!!!!!!!!
his job is to know this crap, espesialy on a production SERVER!!!!
he should not be placing stuff willy nilly on that machine with out at least testing and researching problems….add to the fact that he is a LINUX SYS ADMIN, he should know that you should wait untill it goes into maintanance before you place it on a production server.
if this was a home user then fine, I would not expect him to know anything at all, but he is a PAID sys admin, it is his job to make sure that the system is running and make sure that eveything on it will run well. He should have been fired.
I am not fan of Linux. I come from Amiga land, so I preffer messages based system, asyncrhonous, where even drivers runs as processes. The only current modern system architecture I like is QNX, but it feels too unixish for the average user – I mean – file structure. So it will not become easily Amiga-OS like …
On the other hand, I choosed to install Linux as our email server. First I thought – well, what a mess. Strange file system, all that rights (I was not used to multi-user system). Then Win2K came, nice, UI driven set-ups, etc.
TaCo, there is nothing worse than just anticipating, what is system doing behind the doors you can’t look properly into. Have you even configured W2K network? We install novell clients, what a bunch of tabs to configure. Windows Registry is the hell and I would shoot the person who found out something like that. Also – apps placing stuff into windowssystem dir is overall very bad design idea. Programmers should have simplicity in mind …
I now consider linux being some kind of “infrastructure”. You even don’t have to have X-Win installed on your server, and you can be sure you find something on certain place, in text file.
That’s for servers. As for desktops, you are right – linux will never make it imo. But – only two media oriented systems in history were – AmigaOS, followed by BeOS. Ppl who used such systems in the past know what I am talking about …
PS: I never liked opinions of linux freaks regarding every up not coming for free as being a pile of crap. On the other hand, thanks for such initiative as open-source is – I can learn new stuff, learn and grow, and it is fine to have an option to do so with free stuff, without poluting mind with products of companies which don’t play fair …
Cheers,
-pekr-
Yikes, and they said Windows was bad
lol
My biggest fear as that the anti-MS crowd will one day put an end to Windows and those of us who can’t afford a Mac will be stuck using Linux.
Not that Windows is perfection, but anything is better than Linux.
<em>As for desktops, you are right – linux will never make it imo.</em>
You know, Deniis Ritchie, one of the original UNIX devlopers, said the same thing. He said that UNIX would never become a Desktop operating system (Cite: BYTE magazine, from 1995 or early 1996)
I wonder what he thinks of Mac OS X.
– Sam
<em>I never liked opinions of linux freaks regarding every up not coming for free as being a pile of crap. </em>
Two things:
1) The proprietary OS market is limited to specialized vertical applications; and to Microsoft. All other offerings are declining in popularity; or are not self-supporting.
2) When a proprietary OS maker goes under, the OS is not going to get updated. Look at BeOS. Look at the Amiga.
Propritary OSes are tied to market forces. Free OSes are not.
I would rather use somthing with a sure future.
– Sam