On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 21:05 +0100, Michael Pronath wrote: > Hi all, > > we are currently trying to find out whether SuSE, Redhat or Debian suits > best our needs for our 20+ Linux desktop clients + few laptops office > network. There is one thing that would certainly put Debian out of the > competition so I want to check back if the following is true: > Some things that we need don't work with the pure kernels. For example, > OpenAFS needs patches for the 2.6 kernels, cryptoloop needs patches for > the 2.4 kernels, SATA (libata/ata_piix) needs patches in the 2.4 > kernels, openafs-modules needs to be compiled for the 2.4 kernels. It > seems to us, that all of this stuff is included in the precompiled 2.6 > kernel from SuSE, whereas using Debian would require us to patch and > compile the kernel on our own. We think so because we didn't find a > similarly heavily patched, precompiled Debian kernel via apt. > Patching, compiling and *testing* operating system kernels on our own is > definitely not an option for us. What we need are working tested kernel > images and modules packages including these patches, and being updated > automatically via network for security updates. So far, this seems to > be impossible with Debian, but I'd suppose many Linux users consider > this as crucial, so I wondered and ask. > > Thanks in advance for any assistance. Just out of curiosity: - Why are you mixing 2.4 & 2.6 kernels? Why not just standardize on 2.6.x? - Why AFS? It's pretty esoteric, and so doesn't get that much testing. You want it for laptop synchronization? -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. "What other evidence do you have that they are terrorists, other than that they trained in these camps?" 17-Sep-2002 Katie Couric to an FBI agent regarding the 5 men arrested near Buffalo NY
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part