Gabriel Gunderson wrote:
On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 22:50 -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
(Tangent: I find Linus' kernels to be much more stable than
distribution kernels; anyone else have the same experience? This is
contrary to the wisdom I hear on the net. Maybe it's because I
configure the kernel for specific machines rather than throw in every
driver available.)
I think you will see less of this as time goes by. I hear a lot of talk
about how they are not trying to deliver a finished product like you
would expect someone like Red Hat to deliver. They realize that the
majority of kernels in the wild were packaged by a distro and they don't
seem to want to duplicate that effort when they could be working on the
next big thing. I'm not saying you can't run a vanilla kernel, I'm just
saying that they are not trying to productize it.
Isn't the new four-level versioning system evidence of moving *toward*
stability in the vanilla kernel? They saw a lot of distributions
duplicating the work of stabilizing the vanilla kernel, so they
centralized much of that work.
Now, kernel stability should be up to your distro. If you can't get a
stable kernel from them... then it's time to jump ship. In three years
with Red Hat (and now CentOS) kernels I've only seen one (1) kernel
panic and it was my fault for messing with the modules for digium
hardware (zaptel). I don't know how others have done with them. YMMV.
It was on Red Hat that I learned about kernel instability. ;-)
Shane
.-----------------------------------.
| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
| Don't Fear the Penguin. |
| IRC: #utah at irc.freenode.net |
`-----------------------------------'
