On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 18:37, Andrew Hunter wrote: > Hi to all. You will note that in my subject, I did not say kernel > "upgrades", but rather "updates". Maybe I'm just dumb, but it seems > that sometimes an update results in less stability and degraded > performance. So, what guidelines do y'all typically follow in decided > whether to use a new kernel? Is it, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" > or "must have latest and greatest" or what? What are the best practices > in this respect? Many thanks--
1) If it ain't broke, don't fix it (for at least a couple weeks). If it's not a security fix, or a local exploit when you're the only user, I like to give a month or so for other people to find problems. 2) Keep an old copy around. You can have multiple kernels, just drop back if you encounter problems. -- Stuart Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED], AIM:StuartMJansen> When in doubt, use brute force. -- Ken Thompson, co-creator of Unix
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ newbies mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://phantom.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/newbies
