Any plans for...?

Forum: DSL Ideas and Suggestions
Topic: Any plans for...?
started by: NickDolan

Posted by NickDolan on July 21 2005,16:42

Are there any plans for DSL to use the 2.6 kernel in the future? If they implemented the newest kernel and used XOrg 6.8.2 I would certainly make DSL my permanent and only distro. I love the package selection though. The default applications are great, nothing more than i need. Fluxbox rox. Keep it slim and trim, but up to date. That will get users.

Posted by SaidinUnleashed on July 21 2005,19:30

Read the < FAQ > please.

Posted by frankseu on Aug. 12 2005,15:02

Not realy nice to read this answer in the FAQ.
I would love to see a 2.6.x based DSL at a size of 50MB.

Frank

Posted by mstrhelix on Aug. 12 2005,17:06

Why don't you compile your own 2.6.x kernel and then you wouldn't have to live without it. D-load kernel source code and read the README or NOTES file and follow the directions.
Nothing to it really. Why do you want this specific kernel anyway?

Posted by mikshaw on Aug. 12 2005,20:53

a 2.6.x based DSL at a size of 50mb would require a pile of extensions to return it to the useability of the current 2.4 DSL. It would also not support a lot of the older hardware which DSL is famous for supporting.
I don't understand what 2.6 has that makes it important to so many people...I'm using 3 distros which have *new* 2.4 kernels, and all work spendidly.

Posted by adssse on Aug. 13 2005,04:43

I am not very familier with the workings of the kernel. Could someone explain or point me to a good site where I could see what the difference between 2.4 and 2.6 is? I have no complaints about the 2.4, and I use older hardware so I definetely wouldnt want to lose that support, but I have seen alot of posts like this and just wanted to know why so many want it.

Posted by kopsis on Aug. 13 2005,12:09

Many of the people that want it don't have any idea why other than it's new and shiny ;) For those that do have a legitimate reason, it's probably one of the following:

Performance -- the 2.6 kernel features many improvements in process scheduling (deciding which bits of competing code get to run when). This can improve performance (or at least perceived performance) by keeping apps like media players and the desktop from being slowed down by "background" processing. Note that what you're really doing is just favoring the stuff the user "sees" and slowing down background tasks (vs. a 2.4 kernel) but that's generally desirable from the user's standpoint. 2.6 also reduces overhead for things like spawning new processes and a number of interprocess communication mechanisms which makes it highly desirable for servers.

Drivers -- some device subsystems saw significant improvements in 2.6 and though some of those have been backported to 2.4, some have not. Hotplug/coldplug is much improved in 2.6. In addition, drivers for new hardware are starting to be written exclusively for 2.6. Some get backported to 2.4, but there are no guarantees.

SMP -- symmetric multi-processing is much improved in 2.6. There are far fewer spots in the kernel where interrupts on both CPUs are disabled or resource locks taken by one CPU hold up operation on the other(s). That means better SMP performance (and also better "realtime" performance on single-cpu systems).

The tradeoff of course is size -- both in terms of "on-disk" and "in-RAM" memory usage. The benefits are real, but are of far more value to newer high-end systems than old hardware. The other issue is that though 2.6 gets extensive testing on newer systems, it doesn't see anywhere near the same level of use on old hardware. The result being that 2.4 is less likely to have problems when running on an old "untested" system than 2.6. So long as DSL continues to cater to older low-resource systems, staying with 2.4 seems like the best solution.

Posted by cbagger01 on Aug. 13 2005,16:29

FYI,

Tried a DSL-like livecd with a 2.6 kernel (INSERT project) using QEMU that comes with DSL embedded.

The kernel bootup and overall response to the detection process was noticably slower than the 2.4 kernel version of INSERT or for DSL itself.

Posted by adssse on Aug. 14 2005,03:53

kopsis, thanks for taking the time to explain those details. I think I have a much better understanding of what is going on. From what you have told me I feel pretty satisfied sticking with 2.4

Posted by yyyc514 on Sep. 02 2005,00:43

Quote (mikshaw @ Aug. 12 2005,16:53)

Any you sure? There is the 2.6-tiny project... and if KNOPPIX (have they?) has upgraded to 2.6 then their auto-detection stuff could be pulled over just like it was long ago.

Not saying this should be done, just that IF Knoppix is on 2.6 by now then it's not as complicated as everyone thinks...

Also, what hardware support was dropped from the 2.6 kernels?

Posted by adssse on Sep. 02 2005,04:20

I have been doing some research on apm/acpi and have received different details about the support for each between kernel 2.4 and 2.6. I believe I read that 2.4 does not support acpi without an additional patch or recompiling, is this correct? If someone could give me the lowdown on this I would appreciate it.

Posted by stoneguy on Sep. 04 2005,22:11

Time for me to jump in here.

The biggie in 2.6 as far as I'm concerned is UDFS, aka CDRWs as rewritable media.

There were some attempts to get that feature into 2.4 kernels, but after numerous attempts, the writers concluded it couldn't be done. The 2.6 kernel made required infrastructure changes which made UDFS support a normal kernel option.

The 64MB P166 I'm writing this on right now has acquired a CDRW, a DVD reader, and more HD over the years, but it can't get any more RAM or CPU. Booting Win98, I use it to accumulate stuff onto CDRWs. But under Win98, it crashes every few hours even if sitting unused. Under DSL, it's rock-stable.

I gotta toss in an opinion here. I realize it's a point of pride to keep DSL under 50MB, but really, guys, WHY? I don't want to see DSL go the way of Peanut/aLinux. But those pocket CDs seem to be getting harder and harder to find. (I can't find them in Toronto anywhere and order them by mail from across the country.) The smallness attribute of DSL I value is its ability to run in 64MB RAM. Losing that would mean losing interest in DSL (which I migrated to when Vector started requiring 128MB RAM), and consigning this machine to the scrap heap.

I realize there'll be a performance hit with 2.6. But I'd pay that to gain an ability I can't have with 2.4. And as for the ability to run on older hdw, well, this system IS older hdw (8yr-old ASUS MB), and some other distros load 2.6 kernels on it (in runlevel 2 anyway) no problem. Of course, the best solution would be to offer both 2.4 and 2.6 kernels, but that's a lot of work to maintain.

Posted by jshaw on Sep. 05 2005,02:01

It seems to me that maybe the point has been lost on the newer-everything crowd.

I've been using computers since '90 and have owned a grand total of 5 computers, 1 of which was a loner so that I could run linux without intruding on my wife's Windows Box (DSL, BTW, screemed on that 300MHZ heap of $*&#) and the one I'm using now is only about 8 months old. Suffice it to say that I've always had to figure out how to run as much as possible with as little as possible and I've spent countless hours trimming DOS 4.01 thru Win9x down to as little as possible just so I could run just 1 more app at a time.

I've never been on the cutting edge of any hardware technology. Buying hardware that's already a generation behind, and then using it for 3 or 4 years will really teach a person to appreciate small and fast software.

That's where DSL comes in. It's made to take advantage of the older hardware, and keep it useable for years to come. I'm fully satisfied knowing that my 1.5 GHZ AMD will still be sitting on my desk 4 years from now still bobbing along happily with DSL (or God forbid something else, should DSL fall by the wayside).

DSL isn't for the latest is greatest set, it's for those of use who have to make our purchases last and would like to stay happily computing for years to come using our $400 Newegg "dream machine."

Posted by mikshaw on Sep. 05 2005,02:30

Added to that, there are bigillions of Linux distros available that work fine for mediocre-to-blazing machines, which also support the latest and greatest hardware. If a person wants that, they have many other options. DSL is one of only a few that continues to support not only old hardware but also people who are still limited to dialup. NOTE: there are still many places in this world where broadband is not available unless you want to pay extra for the hardware and service of a satellite connection. Downloading even a 200-400mb distro (of which there are very few) is a lengthy task on dialup.

Posted by SaidinUnleashed on Sep. 05 2005,04:16

Quote (stoneguy @ Sep. 04 2005,17:11)

I realize it's a point of pride to keep DSL under 50MB, but really, guys, WHY?

When we stop adhering to the rules and policies that we have set for DSL, there will no longer BE a DSL. It will become just another mediocre midsized distro.

Look at the distros that started out as mini OSes. Peanut, Puppy, Vector, Slax - the list goes on. What has happened to all of them? THey have succumbed to the tepmtation of bloat. "The jump from 50 to 64mb isn't that big. We should do it!" The result? A distro now filled with gtk2 apps and a heavier WM, unable to run on the lightwieght computers that it was prized on, and not flexible or extensible enough for midrange to high-end boxes. It becomes a victim of mediocrity. There are hundreds of ways to get 200mb of linux on a computer. With many of them, you not only get an operating system, but full package management, dependency checking, updates, etc. Why would I use a something like Slax/Puppy/Peanut when I can use a normal distro with more features?

DSL's appeal is that it can be run on ANYTHING. I run it on a 486DX/66 and it works like a dream. Even the debian-installer CD has a hard time booting on that thing, especially until it sees the swap. Puppy? You'd have to be mad to try to boot it on a 486.

Don't have a bottom of the line box? Load DSL to ram and see how fast your computer can go! It will SHOCK you how much a hard disk is a bottleneck. 50mb will fit into ram on probably 75% of the world's computers. 200mb? You're down to under 20%. Much of the world still runs on pentium-class computers with around 96 - 128mb of ram. Even these "dinosaurs" can be much faster than a midrange box with a normal distro.

And If you have a high-end box, you can have your entire OS in ram, as well as every application you use. It's something you have to experience to believe.

-J.P.

Posted by adssse on Sep. 05 2005,04:21

I dont really have any problem with 2.4, although I am admittedly fairly new and do not understand all of the differences between 2.4 & 2.6, it works for me. I love that new apps, hardware, features etc. come out. I mean where would we be if everyone was simply satisfied and didnt strive for more? I am really impressed with how dsl has been developing. It is continuously improving, but continues to run great on this old machine (233mhz). Just because it doesnt use the most current kernel, I dont think it is behind other distros. Actually I believe it is ahead in many aspects. Its just my simple opinion, but I applaud dsl as being one of a dieing few that cater to those of us with older hardware and trust that they will continue to balance updates with performance.

Posted by cbagger01 on Sep. 05 2005,17:33

To get a personal experience on the difference between 2.4 and 2.6 performance on older hardware, please do the following:

1) Get QEMU. Either from the website or from DSL-embedded.
2) Boot up DSL 1.4 via QEMU, either the dsl.iso file or from DSL-embedded. Or you can use an older version of INSERT that comes with a 2.4 kernel.
3) Boot up the latest version of the INSERT iso file

The difference in performance is quite noticable on a fast computer (P4 2.8GHz).

Try it for yourself.

In my opinion, the only true reason to use a 2.6 kernel for DSL would be for new PC hardware support, especially SATA controllers.

But supposedly most SATA controllers are supported in the newer versions of the 2.4 kernel tree, although my SATA controller (Dell Optiplex GX280) was not autodetected by the 2.4.27 INSERT or by the KNOPPIX 3.7 2.4.27 kernel.

It was autodetected by the KNOPPIX 3.9 2.6.x kernel.

Hopefully, this was just a problem with autodetection and not with lack of driver support.

Posted by stoneguy on Sep. 06 2005,02:03

What I'm trying to say is, I'll bet most of the DSL userbase doesn't care one way whether it fills 50MB or 150MB AS LONG AS IT RUNS IN 64MB OR LESS. That's a lot more significant than the iso size, and is truly what sets DSL apart from all the other general purpose distros.

If a 2.6-based DSL can't run in 64MB, don't go there. If one can, there are people who need what 2.6 offers and can't run other distros because those won't do ANYTHING in 64MB.

Posted by cbagger01 on Sep. 06 2005,03:06

The DSL userbase that owns a Pentium 2 or lower computer system WILL care whether or not it uses a 2.6 kernel because it WILL run slower on these computers.

As for the 50MB limit, DSL is a business card CD-R based distro and according to the maintainer it always will be so I think that we are arguing over a moot point.

If you or someone else wishes to make a slightly larger version of DSL, you are free to do so as long as you don't call it "DSL". Take "Feather Linux" for example. At one time it CLOSELY followed DSL with respect to functionality and even shared some DSL code in addition to the KNOPPIX core.

Nowadays it is a larger distro that fits your ideals and I would expect that it still works on computers with less than 64MB of RAM in non-toram mode.

Unfortunately, because the "toram" function will load the ENTIRE OS into RAM, it appears to be impossible to fit Feather/toram in some computers where DSL/toram will run just fine.

As for 2.6 hardware compatibility needs, most computers that have newer hardware that is only supported in the 2.6 kernel are also new enough that they come equipped with 512MB or RAM or more.

While it is quite possible to modify DSL to work with a 2.6 kernel, it might be easier for you to start with some modular stripped down knoppix core like can be provided by Morphix for example.

Good Luck

Posted by SaidinUnleashed on Sep. 06 2005,04:41

Quote (stoneguy @ Sep. 05 2005,21:03)

We do not aim for computers with 64mb+ of ram. I think that is what you are misunderstanding.

We aim to have DSL be able to run on anything with 16mb of ram or more. Sure, to get full functionality, you need 24mb, but 16 will work. Have more? That's great! You can use some cool features, like toram and large mydsl extensions. But with 16, you can still operate.

-J.P.

Posted by stoneguy on Sep. 25 2005,22:40

OK, you'd convinced me to shut up for awhile. But I only ever shut up for a while

But now I'm wondering what's on DSL's agenda now that Knoppix has dropped the 2.4 kernel? Will DSL take over the changes to port them to later kernels? I notice DSL1.5 is still using 2.4.26.

Posted by cbagger01 on Sep. 27 2005,04:09

It is possible to upgrade the 2.4.x series kernel and keep the existing knoppix autodetection system.

One user, tronik, has already done that and published an unofficial DSL remaster with a newer 2.4 kernel version.

There have been reports from the DSL developers of experiments with DSL remasters and newer kernels, so I am sure that it is possible.

The up and downside is:

Some newer hardware support has been backported into the 2.4 kernel tree.

But more or improved drivers take up more disk space and leave less room available for the rest of the base OS and applications.

So there is no perfect solution. Just a number of compromises. Hopefully, in future versions, the developers will reach a compromise that is beneficial to most users. It is not an easy solution, I am sure.

Posted by frankseu on Sep. 28 2005,11:52

Here are my toughts.

Please keep the 50MB.
I am not hanging on 2.4 or 2.6 stuff.
I am totaly a fan of the 50MB size.
There are enough distros arround with bigger sizes.
Also i prefer this size as i can put some applications on
it and remaster with arrond a size of 60MB which fits
still on most credid card cd-r's.

But i would like to see some more new hardware supported
mostly network/wlan stuff.
Also a newer 2.4 kernel would be nice.
Also a kind of "official roadmap" treat would be nice.

regards from germany
and THANKS to the DSL Guys
Frank

Posted by roberts on Sep. 29 2005,16:59

It is true that I made a dsl version based on 2.4.27 kernel of an official Knoppix version.
I also made a 2.4.26 version, again based on Knoppix.
However, after much testing both versions never made it to release.

While it is also true, that Knoppix has left the 2.4 kernel series
and has moved on to bigger things, 2.6 and DVD sized distro.

This past month all of my focus has been to address these issues.

It has been a special challenge and much compromises to stay the course,
under 50MB and to keep suport for older hardware.

Yet trying to support some of the constantly changing new hardware comming on the scene.
Trying to expand the capabilities of DSL to a wider range of users.

I usually focus on custom code to push the capabilities of a liveCD or improve the UI.
This time it has also been to accept the challenge of these events.

Stay tuned it is nearing release...

Posted by frankseu on Sep. 30 2005,06:43

Hello,

what a great answer !
I swear i stay tuned (as ever for DSL).

It would be nice to hear more often whot is planned
an in what timeline. So still the whis for a kind
of roadmap or "what we ar currently working on"

Thanks to the DSL Makers
Frank

Posted by stoneguy on Sep. 30 2005,10:36

roberts, just adding my thanks too for filling us in. Like frankseu (and I'm sure many other loyal DSL users), I'd also like to see some sort of a roadmap.