RE: [ANNOUNCE] Vendor kernels unpakced

[Marco Colombo <marco@esi.it>]

[removed l-k since it's OT there]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2001, Phil Kos wrote:

> > Just as it makes no sense to run a not-up-to-date release
> > kernel, it makes
> > no sense to keep anything but the very last on line. Just MVHO.
>
> I beg to differ, Herr Doktor von Brand. It makes more sense to run a
> not-up-to-date release kernel than it does to slavishly update to every new
> release without any pressing need for new features or functionality. Don't
> fall into the commercial software trap of "it's newer, so it *must* be
> better!"--here be tygers...

What? Most updates are bug fixes. And I *do* want kernel bug fixes.

Anyway:
1) no one should run a (vendor) kernel if a (vendor) update is available;
2) in the Red Hat case, there are two distro releases a year, on average,
   and 1 or 2 kernel updates per release.

That means you have to update a "Red Hat kernel" page 4 o 5 times a year.
Not a big deal if you plan to do the same thing for other distros.

.TM.
-- 
      ____/  ____/   /
     /      /       /			Marco Colombo
    ___/  ___  /   /		      Technical Manager
   /          /   /			 ESI s.r.l.
 _____/ _____/  _/		       Colombo@ESI.it

-
Kernelnewbies: Help each other learn about the Linux kernel.
Archive:       http://mail.nl.linux.org/kernelnewbies/
IRC Channel:   irc.openprojects.net / #kernelnewbies
Web Page:      http://www.kernelnewbies.org/