I know. This is, I suppose, a philosophical difference. Most Linux gurus recommend running customized kernels. I've played in that arena and feel comfortable there, but still hold to several benefits of running canned kernels. The main benefit is upgradeability... If there are security issues which require a new kernel, I MUST rebuild the kernel(s). Even if I roll my own into RPM's and can take that upgraded kernel and plunk it on all my machines, I still MUST rebuild the kernel. Beyond that, it becomes a support issue whereby no one can quickly know what my kernel is like. If I mail you guys or call support, I have to explain what my kernel has configured and then there is the doubts of my correctness that I have to overcome. If I can say "Stock" ANYTHING, I'm far better off, because I am relatively guaranteed that someone on this list or in the support team HAS and DOES run that kernel.
I see benefits both ways, but in my attempt to remain corporately responsible I must tip my hat to canned kernels. On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:14:35 -0400 (EDT) "Net Llama!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you're going to be playing these slick games > with kernels, it would prolly be better if you built your own, so that > you are sure what is in it. Otherwise you could end up introducing all > kinds of instabilities to the system if you're running a kernel on it > that didn't come with it. _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list - http://linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users Subscribe/Unsubscribe info, Archives,and Digests are located at the above URL.
