| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
The Linux Kernel's Fuzzy Future (InformationWeek)The Linux Kernel's Fuzzy Future (InformationWeek)Posted Dec 6, 2004 19:16 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)In reply to: The Linux Kernel's Fuzzy Future (InformationWeek) by allesfresser Parent article: The Linux Kernel's Fuzzy Future (InformationWeek)
I've actually personally run only kernel.org kernels on my computers, although I've run distro kernels on all the computers that weren't my own. My experience is that kernel.org kernels rarely have problems, and I've never had any problem I couldn't solve by getting the latest kernel.org kernel. I actually ran 2.4.0 and 2.6.0 for at least a few months when each of these came out.
I believe the reason to use a distro kernel (back when it mattered) was that development kernels were frequently very broken, but stable kernels didn't support new stuff. It's plausible that, when Red Hat released their first 2.4 kernel which supported NTPL, that was a more stable kernel than the 2.5 kernel which was current at the time. So the argument is really that there are some kernel.org kernels which don't run (very true, especially in early 2.5), and that some distro customers want features not in any working kernel.org kernel at some point in time.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||