Re: woody kernel question
On Mon, 2002-02-11 at 23:34, Paul E Condon wrote:
> I have just done dist-upgrade from Potato to Woody. I have been using/learning
> Debian for a few months. This was the first serious change from my initial
> installation. The upgrade went smoothly, but took a while at 56k. I found many
> nice improvements, but saw that the kernel had not been upgraded. I suppose I
> could have known this before hand if I had read the right documents more
> carefully, but I didn't.
>
> Now I look at the offerings of kernels in dselect. Which is recommended?
> Of course I have to choose one that corresponds to my CPU, but what of
> versioning? I see 2.2.20, 2.4.13, 2.4.14, 2.4.16, and 2.4.17. There are
> limits to my adventurousness. Which is the likely choise for the default
> Woody kernel when it becomes "stable"? I think I would like to use that one
> if there are not good reasons to avoid it now.
If I remember correctly the current consensus is that 2.2.20 will be the
default kernel for woody. I think this was mainly because 2.4.x was not
quite stable enough when the base system was frozen. iirc the base was
frozen durring the debacle with 2.4.13(it corupted file systems). Right
now 2.4.17 with marcello maintaining is just great. I have been using
it for a while now and I have never had a problem with it, even with all
the abuse that I do to it. Currently on my system:
vmlinuz -> boot/vmlinuz-2.4.17
vmlinuz.stable -> boot/vmlinuz-2.2.20
This seems to work for me. I never boot into 2.2.20 unless I am
re-compliling 2.4.17, and this is just to be safe and to reduce a few
minor hassels.
But to answer your question 2.2.20 is going to be the default, but I
would recomend 2.4.17 because it is far supirior in many ways. Also I
would compile your own kernel. It teaches you alot and in the long run
it is better(IMHO). Oh and use make-kpkg because it is the bomb! But
remember... all of these opinions are for a home desktop.
--
-Scott Henson
shenson2@wvu.edu
Reply to: