Alexandros Papadopoulos wrote:
On Saturday 24 July 2004 14:20, John Summerfield wrote: <snip>for most people, whatever the distro, a kernel from kernel.org is probably a mistake.Could you please elaborate on this?I've always thought that learning the most generic way of handling linux kernels is more valuable than sticking with high-level distribution-specific mechanisms that sometimes break things.
Distributors, including Debian, make some changes to standard kernels: Debian less than others, but think back-ported security fixes. Other distributors at various times have backported USB, low latency and goodness-knuws what else.
ALso, prerequisites for kernels can change, and the distributor will pick that up. If you need a new modutils, expect the packages prerequisites to reflect that.
I did discover 2.6 kernel packages for Woody and it was astonishing how much else was there!
Unless you _need_ a 2.6 kernel, I counsel against intalling one on Woody: you get a system that's largely unsupported by Debian.
If you _need_ a 2.6 kernel, running Sarge makes a measure of sense: at least you will know _nothing_ is supported by the ordinary run of security fixes.
-- Cheers John -- spambait 1aaaaaaa@computerdatasafe.com.au Z1aaaaaaa@computerdatasafe.com.au Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/