2.4 -> 2.2 differences?

2.4 -> 2.2 differences?

[Robert L. Harris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 827 bytes --]



With all the SCO fun going on I have people asking me what functionality
we would loose if we rolled from 2.4.21 kernel to the last known stable
2.2 kernel.

Yes, weathering the lawsuit mess and all is a good plan but I'm still
being asked for this information.  Does anyone have a link listing what
 kind of functionality would be lost, performance impact (p3 and athalon
machines), etc?

Robert

:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris                     | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
                                         @ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu 
DISCLAIMER:
      These are MY OPINIONS ALONE.  I speak for no-one else.

Diagnosis: witzelsucht  	

IPv6 = robert@ipv6.rdlg.net	http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = robert@mail.rdlg.net	http://www.rdlg.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: 2.4 -> 2.2 differences?

[Mike Fedyk]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 10:24:34AM -0400, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> 
> 
> With all the SCO fun going on I have people asking me what functionality
> we would loose if we rolled from 2.4.21 kernel to the last known stable
> 2.2 kernel.
> 
> Yes, weathering the lawsuit mess and all is a good plan but I'm still
> being asked for this information.  Does anyone have a link listing what
>  kind of functionality would be lost, performance impact (p3 and athalon
> machines), etc?

No highmem support,

No journaled filesystems.

No netfilter.  Fewer networking features.  Period.  (ethernet bridging, etc)

Slower SMP

I don't know if it's psycological, but whenever I booted 2.2 on my desktop,
it felt slower.

This was a while ago though.

Mike

Re: 2.4 -> 2.2 differences?

[jw schultz]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 10:24:34AM -0400, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> 
> 
> With all the SCO fun going on I have people asking me what functionality
> we would loose if we rolled from 2.4.21 kernel to the last known stable
> 2.2 kernel.
> 
> Yes, weathering the lawsuit mess and all is a good plan but I'm still
> being asked for this information.  Does anyone have a link listing what
>  kind of functionality would be lost, performance impact (p3 and athalon
> machines), etc?

You could start with Joe Pranevich's "Wonderful World of
Linux 2.4" at
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=1999-10-03-001-05-NW-LF

There have been a number of improvements and features added
since but any 2.2 -> 2.4 features summary should indicate
much of what you would loose in a 2.4 -> 2.2 transition.



-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

Re: 2.4 -> 2.2 differences?

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <20030725142434.GS32585@rdlg.net> you wrote:
> With all the SCO fun going on I have people asking me what functionality
> we would loose if we rolled from 2.4.21 kernel to the last known stable
> 2.2 kernel.

it is easier to turn off SMP.

BTW: what will happen if there is some SMP code from IBM in the kernel which
is owned by SCO? Isnt it a matter of days to remove that code? Does anybody
have to pay for past usage of the code?

Bernd
-- 
eckes privat - http://www.eckes.org/
Project Freefire - http://www.freefire.org/

Re: 2.4 -> 2.2 differences?

[Alan Cox]

On Sad, 2003-07-26 at 00:29, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <20030725142434.GS32585@rdlg.net> you wrote:
> > With all the SCO fun going on I have people asking me what functionality
> > we would loose if we rolled from 2.4.21 kernel to the last known stable
> > 2.2 kernel.
> 
> it is easier to turn off SMP.
> 
> BTW: what will happen if there is some SMP code from IBM in the kernel which
> is owned by SCO? Isnt it a matter of days to remove that code? Does anybody
> have to pay for past usage of the code?

The core 2.2 SMP code is stuff I wrote. Caldera (aka SCO) even provided
me the hardware and asked me to do it. The later table parser code is
from Intel.

Re: 2.4 -> 2.2 differences?

[Robert L. Harris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1573 bytes --]



Too bad you don't have anything they gave you or which they took back 
from you that could be used against them.


Thus spake Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk):

> On Sad, 2003-07-26 at 00:29, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > In article <20030725142434.GS32585@rdlg.net> you wrote:
> > > With all the SCO fun going on I have people asking me what functionality
> > > we would loose if we rolled from 2.4.21 kernel to the last known stable
> > > 2.2 kernel.
> > 
> > it is easier to turn off SMP.
> > 
> > BTW: what will happen if there is some SMP code from IBM in the kernel which
> > is owned by SCO? Isnt it a matter of days to remove that code? Does anybody
> > have to pay for past usage of the code?
> 
> The core 2.2 SMP code is stuff I wrote. Caldera (aka SCO) even provided
> me the hardware and asked me to do it. The later table parser code is
> from Intel.
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris                     | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
                                         @ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu 
DISCLAIMER:
      These are MY OPINIONS ALONE.  I speak for no-one else.

Diagnosis: witzelsucht  	

IPv6 = robert@ipv6.rdlg.net	http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = robert@mail.rdlg.net	http://www.rdlg.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: 2.4 -> 2.2 differences?

[Alan Cox]

On Sad, 2003-07-26 at 01:47, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> Too bad you don't have anything they gave you or which they took back 
> from you that could be used against them.

Its a matter of archived public record since long ago

Re: 2.4 -> 2.2 differences?

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On 26 Jul 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sad, 2003-07-26 at 00:29, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > In article <20030725142434.GS32585@rdlg.net> you wrote:
> > > With all the SCO fun going on I have people asking me what functionality
> > > we would loose if we rolled from 2.4.21 kernel to the last known stable
> > > 2.2 kernel.
> > 
> > it is easier to turn off SMP.
> > 
> > BTW: what will happen if there is some SMP code from IBM in the kernel which
> > is owned by SCO? Isnt it a matter of days to remove that code? Does anybody
> > have to pay for past usage of the code?
> 
> The core 2.2 SMP code is stuff I wrote. Caldera (aka SCO) even provided
> me the hardware and asked me to do it. The later table parser code is
> from Intel.

Did you open up the boxes? Perhaps there was some license note attached to the
internals (`by using this machine, you declare to give up your first born
etc... ')?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds

Re: 2.4 -> 2.2 differences?

[Robert L. Harris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 885 bytes --]



Yeah but likely nothing along the line of correspondence of them
offering you the stuff if you give them a copy of your work on SMP which
would happen to be GPL'd....


Thus spake Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk):

> On Sad, 2003-07-26 at 01:47, Robert L. Harris wrote:
> > Too bad you don't have anything they gave you or which they took back 
> > from you that could be used against them.
> 
> Its a matter of archived public record since long ago

:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris                     | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
                                         @ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu 
DISCLAIMER:
      These are MY OPINIONS ALONE.  I speak for no-one else.

Diagnosis: witzelsucht  	

IPv6 = robert@ipv6.rdlg.net	http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = robert@mail.rdlg.net	http://www.rdlg.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: 2.4 -> 2.2 differences?

[Robert L. Harris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1435 bytes --]


Thus spake Bernd Eckenfels (ecki-lkm@lina.inka.de):

> In article <20030725142434.GS32585@rdlg.net> you wrote:
> > With all the SCO fun going on I have people asking me what functionality
> > we would loose if we rolled from 2.4.21 kernel to the last known stable
> > 2.2 kernel.
> 
> it is easier to turn off SMP.
> 
> BTW: what will happen if there is some SMP code from IBM in the kernel which
> is owned by SCO? Isnt it a matter of days to remove that code? Does anybody
> have to pay for past usage of the code?

But would just turning off SMP shut up the lawyers?  They're saying it'd
take a full roll back to 2.2.

Having Gartner say not to take the suit seriously isn't helping calm
down the lawyers, etc even if there is no proof.

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0523gartntous2.html

Right now there's just a bunch of rumors and stories of people like M$
paying license fees which argumentably provides a precedent.  (tactics
of M$ asside, M$ isn't the topic here)

Robert




:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris                     | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
                                         @ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu 
DISCLAIMER:
      These are MY OPINIONS ALONE.  I speak for no-one else.

Diagnosis: witzelsucht  	

IPv6 = robert@ipv6.rdlg.net	http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = robert@mail.rdlg.net	http://www.rdlg.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: 2.4 -> 2.2 differences?

[Andrew Scott]

On 25 Jul 2003 at 10:24, Robert L. Harris wrote:

> 
> 
> With all the SCO fun going on I have people asking me what functionality
> we would loose if we rolled from 2.4.21 kernel to the last known stable
> 2.2 kernel.
> 
> Yes, weathering the lawsuit mess and all is a good plan but I'm still
> being asked for this information.  Does anyone have a link listing what
>  kind of functionality would be lost, performance impact (p3 and athalon
> machines), etc?

The only reason I'm still using 2.2 is that my binary of realserver won't 
run on 2.4.x.

                      _
                     / \   / ascott@casdn.neu.edu
                    / \ \ /
                   /   \_/