Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] what window manager are you using?
From: Erik Steffl (steffl_AT_bigfoot.com)
Date: Thu Aug 12 2004 - 22:41:49 EEST
Lee Revell wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 12:05, Russell Hanaghan wrote:
>
>>And now, darn it...you got me thinking I should try! Are there any
>>advantages to compiling and leaving out the bunches of crap I don't ever
>>use that are built in the kernel? Like resources, memory, speed savings
>>of any sort?
>>
>
>
> No, absolutely not. 99.99% of Linux users should use their vendor's
> kernel. It has undergone a LOT more stability testing than whatever you
> would compile off of kernel.org.
>
> You should only use a kernel.org kernel if you need some feature or
> driver that your vendor's kernel does not provide, or, obviously, if you
> are hacking the kernel. If you go this route you should attempt to
> build a binary package for your distribution, then install that. This
> way you can post the packages somewhere, and other people who need a
> custom kernel for their own purposes can just download your packages vs.
> repeating all that work.
I think he was asking a different Q: he was asking about advantages
of using compiled as opposed to pre-built kernel, you are comparing
distro kernel to vanilla kernel.
IMO: in general I think it makes sense to compile kernel because you
get exactly what you need plus you can experiment with different setting
to see if you get better performance etc. I tend to use the kernel
source package for my distro (mostly because it can build a package that
can be installed, which takes care of having LILO option to boot former
kernel etc.)
erik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Aug 12 2004 - 22:43:51 EEST