Which one and why for a "no problems & 100% uptime" webserver?

2.2.?, 2.4.?, other?


Thanks for sharing your take on this,

Louis

2.2 seems to be holding up well :D

Kernel Version 2.2.16C32_III
Uptime 50 days 16 hours 24 minutes


I've had no problems out of 2.4 either

You should ALWAYS try to stick to the closest version. There are couple of hundred security holes in 2.2.x. That kernel is old.

That's why I asked about *specific* kernel versions -- not 2.2.all .vs 2.4.all -- but
2.2.specific# .vs 2.4.specific# folks might have an opinion on.

Thanks again,

Louis

i say get the newest stable 2.4.*

On 2.2.x based distro (RH6.x) I use the latest kernel from RedHat errata for that distro.

On 2.4.x based distro (RH7.x), it is a good idea to upgrade to the latest version of 2.4.x kernel, regardless of what the errata says. RedHat errata on 7.1 stops at 2.4.9 or something, while that version has a serious VM problem which unsuitable for web hosting in my opinion.

FreeBSD.

- sorry, couldn't resist :)

2.4.18 - works like a charm :D

Originally posted by Shyne
You should ALWAYS try to stick to the closest version. There are couple of hundred security holes in 2.2.x. That kernel is old.

Please dont' spread FUD. There is nothing wrong with the 2.2.x series of kernels. They are stable as all hell.

As to the "couple of hundred security holes" I bet you can't find one you liar.

Please go troll elsewhere.

-davidu

Kernel Version 2.4.10
Uptime 179 days 1 hours 9 minutes

seems to be chugging along quite nicely. :)

Greg Moore

Originally posted by DavidU


Please dont' spread FUD. There is nothing wrong with the 2.2.x series of kernels. They are stable as all hell.

As to the "couple of hundred security holes" I bet you can't find one you liar.

Please go troll elsewhere.

-davidu

STFU and go do more research before you post some stupid sh*t like that. All the linux kernels are stable, but the presvious versions are not as secure as the new ones.

Originally posted by Shyne


STFU and go do more research before you post some stupid sh*t like that. All the linux kernels are stable, but the presvious versions are not as secure as the new ones.

You say that as if you have any fact.

The 2.2.X branch is still maintained COMPLETELY. All bugs are fixed promptly (at the same time as 2.4.x) and there are a LOT of people who don't wish to deal with all the VM and paging issues with the 2.4.x systems.

You're grasp of security, stability and version control are astonishingly lacking considering the tone of your post.

If you want to prove me wrong, use facts thanks. I can simply point to the kernel mirrors and the changelog to show you that 2.2.x is still actively used and maintained.

-davidu

Originally posted by DavidU


Please dont' spread FUD. There is nothing wrong with the 2.2.x series of kernels. They are stable as all hell.

As to the "couple of hundred security holes" I bet you can't find one you liar.

Please go troll elsewhere.

-davidu

owned

Originally posted by DavidU


You say that as if you have any fact.

The 2.2.X branch is still maintained COMPLETELY. All bugs are fixed promptly (at the same time as 2.4.x) and there are a LOT of people who don't wish to deal with all the VM and paging issues with the 2.4.x systems.

You're grasp of security, stability and version control are astonishingly lacking considering the tone of your post.

If you want to prove me wrong, use facts thanks. I can simply point to the kernel mirrors and the changelog to show you that 2.2.x is still actively used and maintained.

-davidu

Why do you I have to prove anything to YOU? You call me a troll and say I got a tone problem?

my server isnt used for commercial web hosting, however i host about 25 of my personal web sites.

I have
2.4.10
Installed, its very reliable release.

Originally posted by vigor
my server isnt used for commercial web hosting, however i host about 25 of my personal web sites.

I have
2.4.10
Installed, its very reliable release.

Vigor I agree, there are very good 2.4.x kernel releases as well.

I run a mix of 2.2.x and 2.4.x depending on needs. If you look at debian stable it only runs 2.2.x simply because 2.4.x is so new. (relative)

Shyne is just upset with me because I caught him toting the party line of "latest and greatest" when that certainly is not the case and in fact is wrong. he speaks of security problems and stability and has no real idea what he's talking about. (I could make stuff up about nuclear physics and I'd be totally wrong, but I could make myself sound convincing just like he is)

I don't sweat his lack of clue, I just wish people like that wouldn't post if they didn't know. I've given erroneous info in the past and whenever I do I retract it later in the thread -- my mistakes however don't usually include gross hyperbole.

-davidu

LOL, why would I bet upset? I could really care less.

Kernel 2.2.x is less secure. Go through differenet security sites and look up the kernel. You'll see there is many exploits available for it. True, the developers are patching up, but that is not what we're talking here about. If you wana spend time patching up the kernel, it's your problem. The guy doesn't know what kernel to pick, let alone patch it up.

You can do three things:

a) Prove it. Show one exploit for the 2.2.x latest stable release and I'll say "yeah you're right" -- NO PATCHING IS NEEDED. Just the latest 2.2.x release. But you are POSITIVE there are security problems so lets see just one, it should be easy since you claimed there were a couple of hundred.

b) Say you were wrong and that while you were trying to be helpfull you really had no idea what you were talking about.

c) Not respond as a form of "No Contest."

If you prove it, I'll personally give you $20 _AND_ apologize in this forum; otherwise, please don't mislead people.

-davidu

You state that 2.2.x has no exploits or security wholes. How are you gonna prove that?

You can just send me the $20, and apologize in every section.

Originally posted by Shyne
You state that 2.2.x has no exploits or security wholes. How are you gonna prove that?

You can just send me the $20, and apologize in every section.

I just reread all my posts (and didn't change any of them) to make sure I never said "2.2.x has no exploits or security holes" (holes, not wholes).

What I said was that 2.2.x is actively maintained and all bugs are fixed promptly, just as fast as the 2.4.x branch in fact. Of course I can't prove that there aren't any undiscovered holes but I can prove that the known ones are fixed and patched.

You said: "There are couple of hundred security holes in 2.2.x." -- I am asking you to show one. That should be easy for you.

You said: "That kernel is old." -- the latest 2.2.x release is from May 20th 2002 compared to May 25th for 2.4.x (That's a five day difference hardly "old")

You appear to be totally confused as to how kernel versioning works.

The onus is on you to prove you aren't just making things up.

As to your comment: "True, the developers are patching up, but that is not what we're talking here about. If you wana spend time patching up the kernel, it's your problem."

This makes no sense. The latest 2.2.x release needs no patching. In fact, it is MORE likely that the 2.4.x branch will have more bugs found because it is so new. 2.2.x has been around almost two years longer than 2.4.x and has had that much more time to iron out the kinks. Furthermore, 2.2.x has had no drastic VM changes. I'm not saying 2.2.x has to be used over 2.4.x but for someone who wants to try to have a rock solid system that has been tried and tested for a few years, the 2.2.x branch is a great option.

please stop digging your hole deeper. You could have just said "Oh yeah, I was wrong I didn't really understand how the linux kernel is maintained" or something.

-davidu

LOL. I'm still waiting for my $20 and an apology.

The kernel 2.4.x support more features to make your system more secure then the 2.2.x kernel does. Even if both kernels are maintained and both are equally secure, the 2.4.x series includes better/inproved tools (such as iptables) to keep the kernel and the system more secure. Just like that 2.5.x kernels will have more included features for security.

If you want IPTABLES, then 2.4.x is the way to go.

Originally posted by Shyne
LOL. I'm still waiting for my $20 and an apology.

The kernel 2.4.x support more features to make your system more secure then the 2.2.x kernel does. Even if both kernels are maintained and both are equally secure, the 2.4.x series includes better/inproved tools (such as iptables) to keep the kernel and the system more secure. Just like that 2.5.x kernels will have more included features for security.

If you want IPTABLES, then 2.4.x is the way to go.

^ Agreed.

Shyne,

Thanks for sidestepping my comments, I'll interpret that as "No Contest"

EOF.

-davidu

I accept the following methods of payment.

PayPal, BillPoint, Check, Money Order, Wire Transfer, Cash, Cashier's Check, and other most common payments.

Originally posted by Shyne
I accept the following methods of payment.

PayPal, BillPoint, Check, Money Order, Wire Transfer, Cash, Cashier's Check, and other most common payments.

I'm happy to pay:

The deal was:

a) Prove it. Show one exploit for the 2.2.x latest stable release and I'll say "yeah you're right" -- NO PATCHING IS NEEDED. Just the latest 2.2.x release. But you are POSITIVE there are security problems so lets see just one, it should be easy since you claimed there were a couple of hundred.

Lets go...

-davidu

Originally posted by Shyne


STFU and go do more research before you post some stupid sh*t like that. All the linux kernels are stable, but the presvious versions are not as secure as the new ones.

I'de have to agree.
Using the terms Linux and Reliable in a sentance is almost as ridiculas as Talking about the wonders of windows security. Both are laughable. If you absolutely need to use a freeware OS, use Freebsd. It's much more stable, 100% compatible with linux in most cases.

You wrote:
Using the terms Linux and Reliable in a sentance is almost as ridiculas as Talking about the wonders of windows security.

I won't comment on your terrible spelling but it doesn't make your argument sound very convincing. (ridiculas, Talking, sentance)

I will disagree with what you say however. There are plenty of people who run very secure windows systems. Security out of the box does not exist. (Don't even mention OpenBSD unless you really know what you are talking about) -- Any system can be made as secure as possible and it has very little to do with it being linux, bsd, or win32 based.

Linux and Reliable belong together. There are many people, myself included who have machines with uptimes over a year.

-davidu

Originally posted by sam.moses


I'de have to agree.
Using the terms Linux and Reliable in a sentance is almost as ridiculas as Talking about the wonders of windows security. Both are laughable. If you absolutely need to use a freeware OS, use Freebsd. It's much more stable, 100% compatible with linux in most cases.

Are you a freebsd expert that you're saying this? How many years you used freebsd and linux? 3 years? LOL, you think that's enough?

I think Shyne and I will agree that this latest post by Sam Moses makes no sense

I can't even tell who he is agreeing with, me or Shyne.

He seems to contradict himself and make generally uninformed opinions.

As to my little argument with Shyne, I think we can drop it. I know what he's saying and I think he knows what I'm saying.

-davidu

FreeBSD is almost 100% compatible with Linux because both use the same software components. In this regard, FreeBSD is just another Linux distribution with different kernel and libc. If one security problem is found in one component, then in a lot of cases it would affect both FreeBSD and Linux.

I know what you're saying, because if you know what I'm saying, then we both know what we're saying to each other by saying what we know we are saying. You see what'm saying?

2.2
:)