According to Peter Schuller: While burning my CPU.
>
>
> > I think all of the Linux distributions end up using their own kernels as
> > far as source is concerned. Oh, well. =)
>
> Hmm. How sure are you? Can someone else confirm/deny that they're actually
> using different kernels?
>
> Because back when I used RedHat 4.0, I simply downloaded a newer kernel, wiped
> the old one and recompiled - nothing redhat specific at all. And it worked.
>
> I have since then upgraded to Debian 2.0, and been assuming that when the time
> comes, it's perfectly safe to somply recompoile a new kernel and/or patch it.
>
> Am I incorrect? Should I always find some Debian-specofic kernel?
There is only one kernel and thats a "linux-kernel" , the misunderstanding
comes about because it would seem some distributions choose to install
things in different ways, anyhow the linux kernel source code resides in
/usr/src/linux-2.x.x and has a symbolic link called linux linked to it.
I have installed most distributions and i have never found one yet which has
the kernel code in any other place.
Someone mentioned about Redhat having a SOURCE dir, well it does as far as i
know, but thats /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES and has absolutly nothing to do with
the "linux source code" and its default directory(s).
>
> (I know I can't necessarily just drop in 2.2 like nothing's happened, but as for
> staying inside 2.0 I mean)
You can install any files you want on any system, however folks like debian
and redhat (ok, others too) have rpm's to install it for you and do all the
dirty work, that in my opinion leaves you high and dry because you dont know
what has been installed where at te first look so you would not know what to
do in case you need to repair things.
Using "tar" files is the way to learn, ie "Slackware", but thats another
story.
If one likes rpms and redhat/whatever then use them.
>
> / Peter Schuller
>
--
Regards Richard.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
