Is the clean linux-libre kernel better for servers than trisquel's in terms of throughput vs performance? Will running a harddisk backup with duplicity freeze and OS for several hours (like Trisquel's kernel does for me) or will it keep everything usable (like I had it on Debian)?
On 2014-12-03 [email protected] wrote: > "Why does Trisquel not use Linux Libre by default?" > > In a way, it does. It uses a modified version of the Linux-libre deblobbing > scripts (those which are used to remove blobs from the kernel from > kernle.org) to also catch the modifications done in Ubuntu-land. > > "Isn't it easier than deblobbing Ubuntu's kernel which is probably full of > proprietary garbage?" > > It might be, but the difference in work is not much - It's not like every > kernel update need to be re-deblobbed from scratch. Rather, it's typically a > one-time update of the deblobbing script for major kernel releases and it > generally continues working just fine from then forward until the next major > release. In addition to it not being a big difference, not using the kernel > from Ubuntu would also mean that Trisquel doesn't get Ubuntu's other (free) > kernel patches and wouldn't get Ubuntu's security updates. These LTS > releases of Trisquel are supported for five years, and most kernels are no > longer supported by kernel.org during that time so Ubuntu's kernel team > manages it. So using Ubuntu's kernel is really the best choice.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
