Re: Vanilla vs Debian 2.6 Kernels
Glyn Tebbutt wrote:
> I've been running a vanilla kernel for months, always update with a
> vanilla kernel until the other day i was reading the lists and a couple of
> people *regarding another thread* were saying never ever run a vanilla
> kernel as there too buggy and the debian kernel is much much better to run
> instead.
> So which is considered the better solution.
> Vanilla or Debian. Pros and againsts?
> I run debian sid and havnt had any issues with stablity
If the vanilla kernels are working fine for you, there is no need to switch.
That said, the main reason a distribution's kernel would be better than a
vanilla kernel has to do with bug fixes and security issues.
An already-released vanilla kernel is not updated - the main source tree for
that branch is. If you use vanilla kernels, you won't get bug or security
fixes until the next kernel version is released.
A distribution like Debian, OTOH, will release a new kernel package that
includes these fixes (backported to whatever minor kernel version is being
distributed), so you will (usually) get these fixes faster than by waiting
for a new vanilla kernel release.
If you track a custom patch set (like -as, -ac, or -mm on 2.6), you will get
various updates/bug fixes as determined by the maintainer of the patch set.
As a side note, Sarge will be releasing with a 2.6.8 kernel with the -as
patch set, and possibly other patches added by the Debian kernel team.
Adam
Reply to: