[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: 2.4.X kernel

Maximiliano Marin Bustos wrote:
> Hi everybody!


> So i was thinking 2.6.X kernel
> will be very hard to old machines


only looking at the kernel itself, as long as a particular driver you're
needing is not missing in 2.6 compared to 2.4 (i don't think there is
anything of value that got removed, if any), then 2.4 isn't any better.

> and 2.4.X kernel is lighter than
> 2.6.X kernel.

depends - if you use a generic debian kernel that is intended for broad
usage (like the -486 flavour), this has of course a bigger footprint
than a 2.4. if the footprint of the kernel itself is bugging you,
recompile your own minimal one (2.6 has a lot size saving features for
embedded usage that 2.4 hasn't). but that's only a small piece of the

the real 'waste' of memory happens with required envirement for 2.6, and
newer glibc and other libraries. if you really want to go down with the
footprint, the only way you can go is by removing features. either by
recompiling packages, or by using an older distribution (woody, sarge),
but note that those do not have security support anymore.

> What can i do if i want use that kernel on my distro?
> Which options i must modify?
> Can you help me?

neither debian does support 2.4 anymore, nor does 2.4 suport any newer
software we have in debian (e.g. glibc needs 2.6 in order to work).

also, debian-live is based on the concept of initramfs, which is a 2.6

bottom line: if you want 2.4, you're on your own. nobody supports or
uses that anymore. nevertheless, good luck.


Address:        Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email:          daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
Internet:       http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

Reply to: