Re: why still using GCC-2.95 and Linux 2.4.x and 2.2.x?
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 07:54:07PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm still interesting in knowing why people still use GCC-2.95 and the
> older kernels, 2.2 and 2.4. As for the kernels, it used to be that the
> older ones were more stable since 2.6 was also a development series,
> but is it still the case.
> The most interesting issue is the usage of Linux 2.2.x series. are
> there any advantages?
>It simply works. Why should I change the kernel if the hardware didn't
change in the last six or seven years? New kernels for old hardware
often means that drivers are unmaintained now and maybe broken >because
they're not ported to some current changes in the kernel. Avoid all
those problems and use something you know that it works. Cheers, Sven
--
There are a variety of reasons, Tshepang. Most of them revolve around software compatility and truthfully, administrators being a little lazy.
1. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. If a server is working and there aren't any security or other upgrade concerns, it's often much better to leave a working server alone. It minimizes downtime, and downtime is a system administrator's worst nightmare. New software often introduces new bugs.
2. For the 2.2 and sometimes the 2.4 kernels, GCC-2.95 was the recommended compiler over the 3.x series which generated some very goofy object code at the time that they were in heavy use. Unfortunately, GCC isn't perfect, and to this day some versions of the compiler have issues compiling certain programs. Mplayer and GCC 4.x, comes to mind as an example.
Are there any advantages to sticking with either 2.2 or 2.4?
Not that I've seen, unless as Sven noted, you have some really old or goofy hardware.
I can offer this piece of advice, if you do decide to upgrade to something more current, make sure that your hardware is supported. A lot of vendors in the 2.2 era started making proprietary binary only hardware drivers, linking to Linux under the LGPL. While I personally have a distaste for the practice, it exists and is a legitimate way to support hardware from a vendor's point of view. So, if you have any hardware that falls into that category that you can't replace, you'd better not upgrade beyond the last stable version in the kernel series, unless you can get a new driver.
As for 2.6 being less stable than 2.4, I'd say no, not anymore. It was very quirky at first with certain hardware, that was certainly true. That can be said of any newly released kernel series regardless of Linux, BSD, or even Darwin. As any engineer can tell you: it takes time to nail some bugs, and others won't even show up until it hits the user's computer. But 2.6 certainly isn't new any longer, and has been put through extensive testing in the lab and the real world. It is considered the "best choice" series for any system. This doesn't mean go get the newest version, of course, unless you are willing and able to help test it. :-)
I'd say 2.6 is above 2.4, especially when you consider the performance reasons for upgrading to 2.6, such as large file support, and better scalability.
Have a great day,
T.J.
Reply to: