LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 10-02-2005, 11:47 AM   #1
stabu
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: dublin IRL
Distribution: Slackv12.1, Slamd64v12.1,Xubuntu v8.10_64, FC8_64
Posts: 438
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 32
watchout the 2.0 kernel


I figured I'd compile the 2.0 kernel (1996) cos it's so small 5MB, and for the fun of it really.

So I downloaded one from kernel.org and put it into my /usr/src. I untarred and you know what? it dumped its insides into the subdirectory call "linux". I.e. not linux-2.0.1 or anything normal like that.

Tar doesn't ask whethr you want to overwrite when filenames coincide, so it probably corrupted my normal kernel source tree. Ugh!

Not only that but it wanted me to go into /usr/include and recreate some of the symlinks and directories to point to /usr/src/linux places.

Thing is, /usr/include is outside of the kernel source tree. What a mess.

Even when I did that I couldn't compile. SO my general conclsuion is that the 2.0 kernel is prehistoric and used compiling conventions that have disappeared now.

Anybody had similar experiences?
 
Old 10-02-2005, 11:57 AM   #2
Sargek
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Distribution: Debian testing
Posts: 416

Rep: Reputation: 32
Re: watchout the 2.0 kernel

Quote:
Originally posted by stabu
I figured I'd compile the 2.0 kernel (1996) cos it's so small 5MB, and for the fun of it really.

So I downloaded one from kernel.org and put it into my /usr/src. I untarred and you know what? it dumped its insides into the subdirectory call "linux". I.e. not linux-2.0.1 or anything normal like that.

Tar doesn't ask whethr you want to overwrite when filenames coincide, so it probably corrupted my normal kernel source tree. Ugh!

Not only that but it wanted me to go into /usr/include and recreate some of the symlinks and directories to point to /usr/src/linux places.

Thing is, /usr/include is outside of the kernel source tree. What a mess.

Even when I did that I couldn't compile. SO my general conclsuion is that the 2.0 kernel is prehistoric and used compiling conventions that have disappeared now.

Anybody had similar experiences?
I am running a custom 2.6 kernel that is 2 meg. I have all drivers compiled into my kernel, with no modules, and it is still only 2 meg. No need to go back 10 years!
 
Old 10-02-2005, 02:46 PM   #3
stabu
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: dublin IRL
Distribution: Slackv12.1, Slamd64v12.1,Xubuntu v8.10_64, FC8_64
Posts: 438
Blog Entries: 5

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 32
The kernel image might be 2M, but the sources? I'd say the 2.0 kernel image might only be 300kb in size, as soon as I get get it to compile.
 
Old 10-02-2005, 03:01 PM   #4
Sargek
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Distribution: Debian testing
Posts: 416

Rep: Reputation: 32
Sources

Quote:
Originally posted by stabu
The kernel image might be 2M, but the sources? I'd say the 2.0 kernel image might only be 300kb in size, as soon as I get get it to compile.
I don't care how big the source is - it doesn't run in memory, only the compiled kernel does. Disc space is cheap now and I run over 100 gig, which will last me for several years. The 2.6 series kernels are fantastic compared to the old ones, but you said you are just trying for nostalgic sake, so I suppose you are not looking for functionality, only a challenge, right? It might be fun to put together an old system just to see if you can get it to run... Kind of like installing windoze 3.1 again!
 
Old 10-02-2005, 04:42 PM   #5
microsoft/linux
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2004
Location: Sebec, ME, USA
Distribution: Debian Etch, Windows XP Home, FreeBSD
Posts: 1,445
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 48
Re: Sources

Quote:
Originally posted by Sargek
I don't care how big the source is - it doesn't run in memory, only the compiled kernel does.
This is true, however, when using dialup 45MB of download is a long time. Just try to remember that not everyone has a huge incoming pipe.
 
Old 10-02-2005, 05:05 PM   #6
Sargek
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Distribution: Debian testing
Posts: 416

Rep: Reputation: 32
Re: Re: Sources

Quote:
Originally posted by microsoft/linux
This is true, however, when using dialup 45MB of download is a long time. Just try to remember that not everyone has a huge incoming pipe.
Good point. GNU/Linux can be ordered on CD as well - most distros can be purchased for a very nominal fee ($10 or so), if the user does not have broadband. The size of the kernel source code is probably not going to change anytime soon, unless they break out the architectures into seperate branches. Right now, all architechures are supported in a single download. Maybe that's something they might consider. I'm not a kernel developer, so can't intelligently answer that question.
 
Old 10-03-2005, 12:00 AM   #7
foo_bar_foo
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,553

Rep: Reputation: 52
yep we used to change the includes and make symlinks to the kernel source in user space headers.
then as you went along upgrading kernel, performance and stability of everything would degrade like crazy till everything was trashed. Those were the days.
 
Old 10-03-2005, 04:43 PM   #8
stabu
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: dublin IRL
Distribution: Slackv12.1, Slamd64v12.1,Xubuntu v8.10_64, FC8_64
Posts: 438
Blog Entries: 5

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 32
:-D I love the sound of thrashing HDs! windows 3.1 was good for that, on a 486SX @ 4MB RAM w/ 40MB HD! And now they call it "eye-candy". Such disrespect! It was eye-diamonds, in those days (unless you were a mac user - people bought macs back then, not won them, like now).

But that was 1990, 2.0 kernel is 1996. So f_b_f is saying that calls were made outside the kernel source tree while compiling? "make" must have been a different beast back then.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Kernel 2.4 in Zipslack (Waring: unable to open an initial console | Kernel Panic...) kurtamos Linux - General 2 05-10-2006 01:58 PM
Kernel-Patch Debian Logo 2.6.2 not correctly working for custom kernel 2.6.11 smp deepclutch Debian 3 06-27-2005 04:59 AM
kernel panic: try passing init= option to kernel...installation with Red Hat 9 kergen Linux - Hardware 1 09-30-2004 04:28 AM
Where Is Kernel Directory In Rh9(kernel 2.4.20-8), For Compiling HSP56 MR(pctel) Mode rudy3107 Linux - Software 1 07-25-2004 05:17 AM
Unable to build NVIDIA kernel module / determin kernel version Night Ink Fedora 2 05-31-2004 05:54 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:52 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration