On Wednesday, April 28, 1999 at 13:36:15 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > X-UIDL: a01b3f03096f3ff19c87465729c10d44 > > The same goes for new kernel releases. While I see some using the very > latest Linux kernels (2.2.x), others still use older versions of the > kernel (2.0.2x) and they seem to be quite happy with them. Same goes > for this: unless there is a specific new feature (module) in a newer > kernel version, is there much point in upgrading it?
Any net-connected system should probably be running 2.0.32 or later (or was it 2.0.33?) since it contains a patch against the teardrop exploit. And that is a perfect explanation for the principle, IMO. Unless you happen to have newer hardware that is better-supported in a later kernel release, or unless there is a bugfix that you need, there is really no need to upgrade to the "bleeding edge" kernels. I believe Linus himself was quoted at LinuxWorld Expo as telling people not to use 2.2.x kernels unless they needed specific features they contained. (This was a while back, but illustrates the principle.) Once you NEED a feature from a new kernel, you now have a legitimate need of course. Heheh. There are people who "test drive" every just-released kernel and kernel-prerelease-patch, and *actually* *submit* bugs (and fixes) against those releases. Those people are performing a valuable service for the Linux community, by helping to test new code under a broader base of hardware/software configurations than the average (volunteer) kernel hacker could afford. I suspect many people running the bleeding edge kernels don't fit into either of the above two categories and have no greater reason than simply "because I want to." (And that's one of the pleasures of Linux, to be able to do what you choose with your system, regardless.) "Upgrade mania" isn't something I recommend for the average user and especially not for the newbie. But many people actually enjoying seeing what breaks, and puzzling out how to fix it. If you're one of those people, great. If not, also great, since there is certainly room in the Linux community for both. But it's wise to know into which group you fall, and why. (I'm running 2.0.36 on most machines here, btw, fwiw.) As far as a Debian-specific answer about packages goes, look in /usr/doc/<packagename>/changelog.Debian.gz to see a list of what was changed in each new release. Unfortunately, this technique requires that you have already installed the new version to see those changes enumerated. For advance knowledge, to aid in decision-making, you might get enough information from looking at the Bug Tracking System (http://www.debian.org/Bugs/) under a specific package name in certain cases though. I don't know of any other package-specific options. It would be nice if the changelog.Debian.gz files were web-searchable, but I don't believe anyone has written anything to implement that yet. (Someone please post if that's wrong.) -- PGP Public Key available on request: Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID pub 1024/CFED2D11 1998/03/05 Lazarus Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Key fingerprint = 98 2A 56 34 16 76 D5 21 39 93 99 EA 89 D4 B5 A2
