On Mon, 2002-02-11 at 23:34, Paul E Condon wrote: > I have just done dist-upgrade from Potato to Woody. I have been using/learning > Debian for a few months. This was the first serious change from my initial > installation. The upgrade went smoothly, but took a while at 56k. I found many > nice improvements, but saw that the kernel had not been upgraded. I suppose I > could have known this before hand if I had read the right documents more > carefully, but I didn't. > > Now I look at the offerings of kernels in dselect. Which is recommended? > Of course I have to choose one that corresponds to my CPU, but what of > versioning? I see 2.2.20, 2.4.13, 2.4.14, 2.4.16, and 2.4.17. There are > limits to my adventurousness. Which is the likely choise for the default > Woody kernel when it becomes "stable"? I think I would like to use that one > if there are not good reasons to avoid it now.
If I remember correctly the current consensus is that 2.2.20 will be the default kernel for woody. I think this was mainly because 2.4.x was not quite stable enough when the base system was frozen. iirc the base was frozen durring the debacle with 2.4.13(it corupted file systems). Right now 2.4.17 with marcello maintaining is just great. I have been using it for a while now and I have never had a problem with it, even with all the abuse that I do to it. Currently on my system: vmlinuz -> boot/vmlinuz-2.4.17 vmlinuz.stable -> boot/vmlinuz-2.2.20 This seems to work for me. I never boot into 2.2.20 unless I am re-compliling 2.4.17, and this is just to be safe and to reduce a few minor hassels. But to answer your question 2.2.20 is going to be the default, but I would recomend 2.4.17 because it is far supirior in many ways. Also I would compile your own kernel. It teaches you alot and in the long run it is better(IMHO). Oh and use make-kpkg because it is the bomb! But remember... all of these opinions are for a home desktop. -- -Scott Henson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
