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 = [email protected] http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = [email protected] http://www.rdlg.net
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
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: [email protected]
Remember Cernan and Schmitt
In article <[email protected]> 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/
On Sad, 2003-07-26 at 00:29, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[email protected]> 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.
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 ([email protected]):
> On Sad, 2003-07-26 at 00:29, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
> 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 = [email protected] http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = [email protected] http://www.rdlg.net
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
On 26 Jul 2003, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Sad, 2003-07-26 at 00:29, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]> 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 -- [email protected]
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
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 ([email protected]):
> 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 = [email protected] http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = [email protected] http://www.rdlg.net
Thus spake Bernd Eckenfels ([email protected]):
> In article <[email protected]> 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 = [email protected] http://ipv6.rdlg.net
IPv4 = [email protected] http://www.rdlg.net
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.
_
/ \ / [email protected]
/ \ \ /
/ \_/