Linux - KernelThis forum is for all discussion relating to the Linux kernel.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I have an old laptop (300mhz,128mb ram) wich is currently running debian lenny. I thought I might speed things up a little, by building it a custom kernel, and being adventurous I thought, I'd try the 2.4 line (all my experience has been with 2.6 sofar, and considering its an old system...).
Anyway, it built allright, but I'm unable to test it, because Debian's init complains that the kernel is too old..
So my question, what distro would be best for me, for using a 2.4 kernel.
Don't ask about what features I want, I don't know or care, I just want to get that kernel running.
On a side note, what 'would' you do with a 300mhz laptop??
I would use a 300Mhz note for programming stuff. Put a minimal system made from Vim + GCC, and you've got an ideal machine for a programmer: portable, with a long-lasting battery if you use a light WM, and easy to work on. Also you could use it as a backup machine.
Or, on the other hand, a friend of mine uses a Pentium-II generation machine as server at home... He is a freelancer and uses it to send his work to clients, and at the same time it's a torrent-client
Well I think you might have gotten off on the wrong foot here. Using 2.4 on older hardware won't give you any performance increase, if anything, it will be slower than 2.6, as all tweaks and improvements are now being done on the 2.6 branch and are not necessarily back ported to 2.4.
The Linux kernel isn't like Windows, where there is a linear relation to release date and hardware requirements. While overall the 2.6 kernel is much larger and more complex than 2.4, on a custom build you are only enabling the support and features for your specific needs. So all that added size and complexity will not be included in the kernel your own hardware eventually runs.
The bloat (and I use this term very loosely) in 2.6-based distributions is not from the kernel, but all of the other software built on-top of the kernel. Things like HAL and UDEV make the machine easier to manage at the sake of performance, but the beauty of Linux is that you are free to disable and remove anything you want at all.
The point is, if you take a 2.6 kernel and a modern distribution, and you slim them down to only the bare minimum of what you actually need, there is no reason you couldn't run it on a 300 MHz machine with 128 MB of RAM.
That said, if you really want to use a 2.4 kernel in a "real" distribution (not a live CD), you have no choice anymore but to use an older release (and the outdated software that comes with it). Slackware 11 was the last to run 2.4, and should be lean enough to give you decent performance out of the box.
Keep in mind that a machine like that will have to run a more simplistic set of applications, no matter what kernel you are running. Avoid KDE, and stick to XFCE or maybe even FluxBox if you want to squeeze the most power out of it. Firefox is probably not going to be a lot of fun on their either. I have had better luck with Opera on older hardware than FF, but I haven't tried on the latest versions of Opera so that might not hold true anymore.
Hey Dracuss, are you sure about DSL? I always thought newer releases were built ontop of 2.6..
Nice idea with the programming machine, sadly
Quote:
portable, with a long-lasting battery
are not the attributes belonging to this baby. It ways at least a few KG, and the battery is dead
I've been thinking about using it as a small server of some kind, and maybe I will, sadly I don't really trust the AC-adaptor any more, although I guess I could just replace that..
And MS3FGX,
I know, you're absolutely right, a slimmed down 2.6 will probably run faster, I was just aiming at 2.4 out of pure curiosity. Also I'm doing a course on networking this term, and we use 2.4 there (due to its use in embedded systems).
I really don't care much DE or WMs o this machine, so I'm also not that fixed on all the newest bells and whistles a 'modern' distro can offer, however I was hoping that somebody knows of some project, that tries to offer a relative modern software stack, together with the 2.4 line.
If all else fails, I still have a 'real' SUSE v.6 cd-case flying around here somewhere...
Just my $0.02, but I believe that you owe it to yourself to at least try Puppy Linux. I am happily able to browsing,and mp3, and abiword stuff, handily with a derivative called Mean Pup Opera, on a machine with half of those credentials... Takes all of about a 105 MB downloaded iso.
RP
Also, I wouldn't recommend you using the notebook as a server... IMHO, I don't believe that the cooling system of it would be able to support it being on for days. Simply, notebooks are not designed for this. You should think about improving it's heatsink if you want it permanently on
PS The AC adaptor is very easy to replace. You could even build one of your own :P
Quite true, the cooling system is a bit off..having it on your lap just for half an hour isn't really a good idea (not even considering its weight)...
also I really don't need another server..its just that this fine little machine is hanging around my flat and I don't know what to do with it.
I even installed DOS, for playing old games, but somehow that sucks on a laptop
Thanks for the pointer with DSL, I really did think it used 2.6.
As for puppy, which I generally really like, maybe I should try a different spin, I had negative results with it a while back on that machine, also I found the default applications chosen not to be very useful for me, I even tried to 'spin my own', but that failed due to not having enough time...
Slackware, I've never used before, maybe I'll try it, as a matter of fact, I think I'll start with it, and see where it takes me
Distribution: Fedora on servers, Debian on PPC Mac, custom source-built for desktops
Posts: 174
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS3FGX
Well I think you might have gotten off on the wrong foot here. Using 2.4 on older hardware won't give you any performance increase, if anything, it will be slower than 2.6, as all tweaks and improvements are now being done on the 2.6 branch and are not necessarily back ported to 2.4.
The Linux kernel isn't like Windows
Give the guy a break, he wants to try 2.4 on his 300Mhz, and he compiled it. He knows what he is doing. Damn Small Linux uses 2.4 by default, he could try that. I personally know that there is not much difference at the core, I can run most 2.6 apps on 2.4. 2.6 just has a lot more drivers in it. As far as what I would do with that 300Mhz, put fedora 7 on it and use it as a production machine, fedora 7 is just small enough and just up-to-date enough that it makes a great distro for old systems. My 256MB of RAM vaio runs Fedora 7 with XFCE very fastly.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.