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
On Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:03:46 -0400
begin Matthew Carpenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth:
[snip]
I see benefits both ways, but in my attempt to remain corporately
responsible I must tip my hat to canned kernels.
canned kernels are great if:
you don't run a specialized system (i.e.,
2.4.13 (COLW3.1.1) provides drivers which handle the DLink, Orinoco, and
Cisco wireless cards out of the box just fine. I'm not saying that there
aren't drawbacks to both approaches, but the approach I believe most
fitting to mainstream server installs (at least in Corporate America) is
canned
fstab is different, perhaps?
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Matthew Carpenter wrote:
A few days ago we talked about sharing a kernel between installs (eg. SuSE
and COL installed on same system, both running the 2.4.18 kernel included
in SuSE).
Now I do have one question... I was running COLS3.1 with
On 7/8/2002 4:41 PM, someone claiming to be Matthew Carpenter wrote:
A few days ago we talked about sharing a kernel between installs (eg. SuSE
and COL installed on same system, both running the 2.4.18 kernel included
in SuSE).
Now I do have one question... I was running COLS3.1 with the
On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 17:00:47 -0400
Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
because ide-cd is loaded before ide-scsi, or ide-cd support is compiled
into the kernel?
hmm.. Interesting thought... Perhaps the ide-cd support is compiled into
SuSE's kernel, whereas is was not in COL's 2.4.2
On Mon, 8
On Mon, 8 Jul 2002, Matthew Carpenter wrote:
On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 17:00:47 -0400
Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
because ide-cd is loaded before ide-scsi, or ide-cd support is compiled
into the kernel?
hmm.. Interesting thought... Perhaps the ide-cd support is compiled into
SuSE's
