Re: debian and linus kernel, the difference??
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 at 08:59:14 +, Alex Malinovich wrote: You're free to continue using the stock kernels and you'll have no problems with it. The Debian kernels are just there for convenience. On Ah, that is good to know. You should put your signature after -- , not --. That's two - PLUS a space. That way most modern mail clients will automatically remove your signature when they quote your message so that we don't have to. :) Mine (Mutt) won't (misconfigured?); now should be ok, thanks. Ciao -- On this laptop no Windows system survives and LINUX POWER reigns UNLIMITED. Successfully Microsoft free since December 2002. GnuPG key ID: 28A61681 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and linus kernel, the difference??
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 at 10:09:45 +, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: In general I would run WITH the patches, since powers greater than I have decided they would be a good idea. Debian certainly is something greater than I ;-) What I don't understand is how you apply debian patches to a kernel which is _not_ in debian, i.e. 2.4.24 in woody which has 2.4.18; do you use unstable packages?? -- On this laptop no Windows system survives and LINUX POWER reigns UNLIMITED. Successfully Microsoft free since December 2002. GnuPG key ID: 28A61681 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and linus kernel, the difference??
Brian P. Flaherty wrote:
Ken Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:51:24 +, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:09:45 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In general I would run WITH the patches, since powers greater than I
have decided they would be a good idea. Debian certainly is something
greater than I ;-)
I'm going to look at what these patches are. Back in the Herb Xu era, I
disliked the volume of backports and somewhat untested stuff that was put
in the debian kernel.
Debian Kernel 2.6.8 could burn CD's.
Linus' Kernel 2.6.8 couldn't.
This seems like a timely discussion because if you check the second
last issue of kerneltraffic, there is a synopsis of lkml discussion of
the 2.6 development model:
http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20041117_284.html#5
Based on the kerneltraffic synopsis, it sounds like kernel developers
have changed the meaning of 'stable' in the 2.6 series in an effort to
get things into the kernel faster. The synopsis suggests that the
distributions (e.g., Debian) are responsible for making the kernel
really stable ('really' as in actually stable, not super-stable) and
kernel developers focus on development.
Meaning that the patches do that. I posted a synopsis of those earlier:
http://esquipulas.homeunix.com/index.php?p=55
But I would like a simple explanation of them. Note that the important
one in 2.4.x cramfs for initrd is now in the kernel with 2.6.x, as I
understand it because I don't find the patch.
I use 2.6.9 with Sarge because it has a more or less stable patch for
Ruby Multi-seat Linux, which fits clean with the Debian patches.
I could use 2.4.27 also but:
That Ruby version disables gpm copy/paste, shows garbage on vc on
startup with my nVidia video cards, and has no fb support.
On the other hand 2.4.27 has a working SVGATextMode, which fails in
2.6.x, which I still find much better than fb.
You win some, you lose some.
H
Furthermore, the
distributions have all the beta-testers (read as users?) and can
funnel bug information back to the kernel developers more efficiently.
If this is true, then this may be a good reason to use Debian kernels,
rather than kernel source from www.kernel.org.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
debian and linus kernel, the difference??
hello debianers, I have always been wondering what is the difference between a fresh kernel from linus and a debian kernel; I have always been using the first one, maybe I have always been wrong?? No visible side effects here, though... Saluti, Mauro. -- On this laptop no Windows system survives and LINUX POWER reigns UNLIMITED. GnuPG key ID: 28A61681 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and linus kernel, the difference??
On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 10:47 +0100, Mauro Darida wrote: hello debianers, I have always been wondering what is the difference between a fresh kernel from linus and a debian kernel; I have always been using the first one, maybe I have always been wrong?? No visible side effects here, though... The only difference is that the Debian version of the kernel is pre-compiled for you and has some optional patches already applied. The bulk of the code is still the same as a regular Linux kernel though. You're free to continue using the stock kernels and you'll have no problems with it. The Debian kernels are just there for convenience. On my work PC, for example, I don't have the time to recompile and reconfigure a kernel once every month or two. At home, since I do have the time, I build from source. (Though I use the kernel-source Debian packages since I have a local Debian mirror at home.) Saluti, Mauro. -- On this laptop no Windows system survives and LINUX POWER reigns UNLIMITED. GnuPG key ID: 28A61681 You should put your signature after -- , not --. That's two - PLUS a space. That way most modern mail clients will automatically remove your signature when they quote your message so that we don't have to. :) -- Alex Malinovich Support Free Software, delete your Windows partition TODAY! Encrypted mail preferred. You can get my public key from any of the pgp.net keyservers. Key ID: A6D24837 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: debian and linus kernel, the difference??
Mauro Darida wrote: hello debianers, I have always been wondering what is the difference between a fresh kernel from linus and a debian kernel; I have always been using the first one, maybe I have always been wrong?? No visible side effects here, though... Saluti, Mauro. -- On this laptop no Windows system survives and LINUX POWER reigns UNLIMITED. GnuPG key ID: 28A61681 In my case: linux-2.6.9.tar.bz2 + dpkg -i kernel-patch-debian-2.6.9_2.6.9-2_all.deb + run-parts /usr/src/kernel-patches/all/2.6.9/apply = kernel-source-2.6.9 The patches are already present in kernel-source-2.6.9. If you want to know what is in the patches look in the debian directory instead of the apply directory of the above. That will not mean much and some have no description. In general I would run WITH the patches, since powers greater than I have decided they would be a good idea. Debian certainly is something greater than I ;-) That said, it remains something of a mystery how Linus decides what is IN or NOT IN a kernel version. Meaning I would certainly put some things IN, that are not IN. To stay on top you would have to dedicate your time to watching http://lkml.org/ which can get tedious because of the subject matter. H. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and linus kernel, the difference??
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:09:45 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In general I would run WITH the patches, since powers greater than I have decided they would be a good idea. Debian certainly is something greater than I ;-) I'm going to look at what these patches are. Back in the Herb Xu era, I disliked the volume of backports and somewhat untested stuff that was put in the debian kernel. -- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and linus kernel, the difference??
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:51:24 +, Jon Dowland wrote: On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:09:45 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In general I would run WITH the patches, since powers greater than I have decided they would be a good idea. Debian certainly is something greater than I ;-) I'm going to look at what these patches are. Back in the Herb Xu era, I disliked the volume of backports and somewhat untested stuff that was put in the debian kernel. Debian Kernel 2.6.8 could burn CD's. Linus' Kernel 2.6.8 couldn't. -- I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment. See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and linus kernel, the difference??
Ken Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:51:24 +, Jon Dowland wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:09:45 -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
In general I would run WITH the patches, since powers greater than I
have decided they would be a good idea. Debian certainly is something
greater than I ;-)
I'm going to look at what these patches are. Back in the Herb Xu era, I
disliked the volume of backports and somewhat untested stuff that was put
in the debian kernel.
Debian Kernel 2.6.8 could burn CD's.
Linus' Kernel 2.6.8 couldn't.
This seems like a timely discussion because if you check the second
last issue of kerneltraffic, there is a synopsis of lkml discussion of
the 2.6 development model:
http://www.kerneltraffic.org/kernel-traffic/kt20041117_284.html#5
Based on the kerneltraffic synopsis, it sounds like kernel developers
have changed the meaning of 'stable' in the 2.6 series in an effort to
get things into the kernel faster. The synopsis suggests that the
distributions (e.g., Debian) are responsible for making the kernel
really stable ('really' as in actually stable, not super-stable) and
kernel developers focus on development. Furthermore, the
distributions have all the beta-testers (read as users?) and can
funnel bug information back to the kernel developers more efficiently.
If this is true, then this may be a good reason to use Debian kernels,
rather than kernel source from www.kernel.org.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and linus kernel, the difference??
On Tuesday 30 November 2004 17:14, Ken Bloom wrote: Debian Kernel 2.6.8 could burn CD's. Linus' Kernel 2.6.8 couldn't. Except for me. I can't burn CDs on either. I now understand why though (afre a massive debugging effert), its a timing issue with my drive. -- Alan Chandler [EMAIL PROTECTED] First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. --Gandhi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and linus kernel, the difference??
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:14:53 -0800, Ken Bloom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debian Kernel 2.6.8 could burn CD's. Linus' Kernel 2.6.8 couldn't. I'm not sold on 2.6 yet. -- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: debian and linus kernel, the difference??
On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 10:09:45AM -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: Mauro Darida wrote: hello debianers, I have always been wondering what is the difference between a fresh kernel from linus and a debian kernel; I have always been using the first one, maybe I have always been wrong?? No visible side effects here, though... Saluti, Mauro. In my case: linux-2.6.9.tar.bz2 + dpkg -i kernel-patch-debian-2.6.9_2.6.9-2_all.deb + run-parts /usr/src/kernel-patches/all/2.6.9/apply = kernel-source-2.6.9 The patches are already present in kernel-source-2.6.9. In general I would run WITH the patches, since powers greater than I have decided they would be a good idea. Debian certainly is something greater than I ;-) It's my understanding/assumption that the only difference between a kernel.org kernel patched with kernel-patch-* and a kernel-source-* is that the kernel-source version has some non-free stuff removed, but they are otherwise identical, is that correct? I'm currently using kernel.org kernels (still using 2.4's) with kernel-patch. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
