[sclug] Not upgrading kernel to 2.6

[Alex Butcher]

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004, Simon Huggins wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 25, 2004 at 12:58:01PM +0100, Matt wrote:
> > Maybe this is a reason why having five squillion different Linux
> > distributions is a bad thing. Joe Bloggs sat in his bedroom with his
> > own "Bloggix" Linux Distro simply doesn't have the resources to
> > maintain his own kernel and associated patches, nor does he probably
> > have the resources to track and keep up-to-date WRT other package
> > security updates.
> 
> I know I was rambling on Friday but isn't the mainline 2.6 tree still
> going to be reasonable given the patches will have had testing in -mm ?

Depends on what value of 'stable' is sufficient for your needs.

I've been mostly sticking with vendor kernels for most purposes for years
now. And, in the few cases I haven't (say, because I want to play with some
shiny kernel space toy not yet included), I've done so by merging the
requisite patches with the vendor kernel. Yes, this takes a bit longer than
patching a vanilla kernel, but helps me sleep better. ;-)

Best Regards,
Alex.
-- 
Alex Butcher      Brainbench MVP for Internet Security: www.brainbench.com
Bristol, UK                      Need reliable and secure network systems?
PGP/GnuPG ID:0x271fd950                         <http://www.assursys.com/>