2.4, 2.5, 2.6 kernel? whats good for what?

ChojinDSL · l33t Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 784

Im a little confused with the kernel version numbers.
If the 2.6 series is the newest, why are there still releases for 2.4 and what about 2.5?

Will 2.4 ever become 2.6?

Are there any immediate advantages or disadvantages to using 2.6 as opposed to sticking with 2.4?
What about 2.5?
Is it like: 2.6. unstable but cutting edge, 2.4 stable and well tested but behind on newest features, 2.5 somewhere in between?

Perhaps some kernel experts can clarify this for me or point me to some enlightening webpages.

Cheers.

andrew_j_w · Guru Joined: 28 Jun 2003 Posts: 534 Location: York, UK

In Linux odd version numbers are unstable releases, while even ones are stable releases.

2.4 is the previous stable release - it is well tested, but still has a few minor flaws hence the occasional patching.

2.5 was a testing branch to try things out in advance of 2.6

2.6 is the next stable release, currently in feature freeze the developers are working on ironing out any last remaining bugs before declaring it as stable.

2.6 is just so damn fast it's unbelievable! I'd definitly try 2.6, but since it's not offically stable you might have some problems with it - I haven't though.

HTH,
Andrew

nevynxxx

Starborn · Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:23 pm Post subject:

Ok, the kernel goes on an odd/even cycle. Odd kernel versions (2.1, 2.3, 2.5 etc) are development series kernels - that is, kernel that are being actively developed, and thus unstable. Even kernel versions are what odd versions become when development stops. So, 2.5 is dead - completely replaced by the stable branch 2.6. 2.4 is the older stable branch, a lot of people won't be upgrading to 2.6 immediately (especially server admins) so there will still be updates to the 2.4 series for some time. 2.2 is still being updated in the same manner, so is 2.0.
_________________
"I think ecchi things are bad" - Mahoro, Mahoromatic

"I think ecchi things are good, especially mahoromatic" - Me.

ChojinDSL · l33t Joined: 07 Jul 2003 Posts: 784

Does that mean that if any improvements are still made to the 2.4 kernel, these improvements will be available in the 2.6 kernel?

soebbi · Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:03 am Post subject:

Improvements to the 2.4 kernel are almost always backports of advantages introduced by the 2.6 kernel for people who like the 2.4 kernel for whatever reason more that the 2.6 (e.g. you can get the 2.6 scheduler for 2.4 i believe).
_________________
"Even though Mac Users may be only 10% of market, always remember we are the top 10%"
- Douglas Adams

Lovechild · Posted: Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:34 am Post subject:

even releases 2.4, 2.6 are the stable branches.
odd releases (2.3, 2.5) indicates development branches.

We have just finished a long development cycle with 2.5 and are in 2.6.0 prerelease state, I would say 2.6test11 more stable that most 2.4 kernels at this point, it still has known bugs but Andrew is on vacation right now so no commits to mainline atm. As Linus has tried something new this time - handing over STABLE to the maintainer from the word go so he can concentrate on what's fun - like breaking the kernel in all new and innovative ways.

Bar · n00b Joined: 21 Jun 2003 Posts: 73

Thought I'd add easier way to see 2.6 is its just the newest 2.5 with a new name to get more people to use it. Most people see it as safer when its called the beta of the new stable rather then the development branch.
_________________
feel free to correct (read:lightly flame) anything wrong above

"Don't take life to seriously. It isn't as if you will actually live through it anyways"-Elbert Hubbard

gsfgf · Veteran Joined: 08 May 2002 Posts: 1266

for the record, ck-sources are at least as fast, if not faster than 2.6.
_________________
Aim:gsfgf0

Lovechild · Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 12:26 pm Post subject:

Athas · Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:48 pm Post subject:

With gaming-sources, I achieved superior desktop performance to every 2.6 kernel I could find... except for wgi-sources. Damn, wgi-sources was what got me on 2.6, they're without doubt the best patchset ever.

2.6 - It'll r0x0r YouR b0x0r

_________________
Emacs-optimized danish console keymap - My .emacs
Climacs - next generation Emacs.

Clete2 · Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 7:18 pm Post subject:

Lovechild, I know you aren't doing the love sources anymore (triator

), but could you find me a list of the benefits over the latest development-sources?

Lovechild · Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 7:44 pm Post subject:

Yen · Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2003 10:49 pm Post subject:

Well Linux is not MS who tell us to buy their new product when a newer version comes out.
There is one next release for 2.4 series, next releases for 2.4 wille only be security fixes....

2.5 is the development verison of 2.6 (so 2.5 is not used anymore).

2.6 is the newest Linux kernel, most desktop users will upgrade to 2.6 (cos 2.6 haves NTFS write support, ALSA and more)

Server admins will wait before they upgrade cos they need stability and not NTFS and ALSA.

Grtz Yen

gsfgf · Veteran Joined: 08 May 2002 Posts: 1266

RandomWalk · n00b Joined: 16 Mar 2003 Posts: 7 Location: Boston, MA

Just thought I'd give people a head's up. I'm the maintainer of the ck patchset (not the ebuild). The patchset is now available at http://www.plumlocosoft.com/kernel/

-RW

Lovechild · Posted: Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:39 am Post subject: Re: ck-sources