Just out of curiosity, do you prefer stock/vanilla kernel or do you
patch it? If you patch it, which patches do you apply and why?

Regards,
Denis

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:15:12 +0400,
Denis A. Kaledin <hannibal@nline.ru> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, do you prefer stock/vanilla kernel or do you
> patch it? If you patch it, which patches do you apply and why?

My personal preference at the moment is the latest stable 2.4 kernel,
usually bare.i, /without/ recompiling it for CPU optimisations etc. The
reason being is that I'm happy enough with the performance, usuability
and stability of these kernel packages, so I don't have any major urge
to recompile.

--
Mark Hill <usenet@mark.ukfsn.org> (devnull address not read)
GPG KeyID: 4A3B58AC

On Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:15:12 +0400, Denis A. Kaledin wrote:

> Just out of curiosity, do you prefer stock/vanilla kernel or do you
> patch it? If you patch it, which patches do you apply and why?
>
> Regards,
> Denis

I have used bare.i at home since slack 3.0. I am frequently upgrading
hardware so compiling unique kernels just creates problems.

Et circa horam Thursday 08 of April 2004 16:15, clamavit Denis A. Kaledin:

> Just out of curiosity, do you prefer stock/vanilla kernel or do you
> patch it? If you patch it, which patches do you apply and why?
>
> Regards,
> Denis

I usually install new Slackware version with bareacpi.i kernel, then I take
the config-ide-2.4.xx file, make a few tiny changes (optimization for
Athlon, ACPI support, ISO8859-2 as default codepage etc.) and compile the
kernel source from slackware-current.
Regards, jkb

--
The defense attorney was hammering away at the plaintiff: "You claim," he
jeered, "that my client came at you with a broken bottle in his hand. But
is it not true, that you had something in YOUR hand?" "Yes," he admitted,
"his wife. Very charming, of course, but not much good in a fight."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Et circa horam Thursday 08 of April 2004 16:15, clamavit Denis A. Kaledin:

> Just out of curiosity, do you prefer stock/vanilla kernel or do you
> patch it? If you patch it, which patches do you apply and why?
>
> Regards,
> Denis

I usually install new Slackware version with bareacpi.i kernel, but later I
take the config-ide-2.4.xx file, make a few tiny changes (optimization for
Athlon, ACPI support, ISO8859-2 as default codepage etc.) and compile the
kernel source from slackware-current (2.4.25 at the moment).
Regards, jkb

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAdaOmQhBzeHEgRd4RAtzOAKCV0D4nTDBN9bqAivKeiJ uf2CTNRACffWh1
jqE9DA8uc/Wy92hk+PgS6/A=
=qq1S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Denis A. Kaledin wrote :

> Just out of curiosity, do you prefer stock/vanilla kernel or do you
> patch it? If you patch it, which patches do you apply and why?

Until Linux 2.4.25 I always had to use the XFS patch. But now XFS has
become part of the kernel and from now I wont have to patch anymore.

Well thats not exactly the truth, I usually replace tux at the
framebuffer with some Slackware stuff. And no, there's no reasonable
reason for this.
--
Thomas O.

This area is designed to become quite warm during normal operation.

how about security hardening kernel patches?

Regards,
Corvin