On Mon, 2012-08-27 at 15:38 -0400, Celejar wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 01:04:39 -0500 > Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> wrote: > > > On 8/26/2012 6:39 PM, Gary Dale wrote: > > > > > Experimental kernels are probably better than downloading the source > > > from kernel.org and compiling it. > > > > I disagree. I've been running late model vanilla kernels with Stable > > for many years without issue. Currently I'm running vanilla 3.2.6 > > w/Squeeze since shortly after kernel.org released 3.2.6 as stable, on > > one box almost exactly 6 months ago: > > > > Linux greer 3.2.6 #1 SMP Mon Feb 20 17:05:10 CST 2012 i686 GNU/Linux > > 00:52:24 up 179 days, 12:21, 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.09, 0.07 > > > > (Wow, 6 months already? Time for me to build a new kernel) > > What do you do about security? 3.2.x is already up to .28 - do you > track security discussions vigilantly to ensure that you aren't > vulnerable to anything that's been caught since then?
Now and again I run a kernel 2.6, connected to the Internet for hours, no firewall. This old Linux install even in 2012 never was corrupted. Not recommendable, however Linux isn't Windows, regarding to the security needs, e.g. not a server, just a desktop PC, it's still relatively secure. 2 Cents, Ralf -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1346097345.1286.12.camel@localhost.localdomain
