Sharing Kernels Revisited

[Matthew Carpenter]

I know.  This is, I suppose, a philosophical difference.  Most Linux gurus
recommend running customized kernels.  I've played in that arena and feel
comfortable there, but still hold to several benefits of running canned
kernels.  The main benefit is upgradeability...  If there are security
issues which require a new kernel, I MUST rebuild the kernel(s).  Even if
I roll my own into RPM's and can take that upgraded kernel and plunk it on
all my machines, I still MUST rebuild the kernel.  Beyond that, it becomes
a support issue whereby no one can quickly know what my kernel is like. 
If I mail you guys or call support, I have to explain what my kernel has
configured and then there is the doubts of my correctness that I have to
overcome.  If I can say "Stock" ANYTHING, I'm far better off, because I am
relatively guaranteed that someone on this list or in the support team HAS
and DOES run that kernel.

I see benefits both ways, but in my attempt to remain corporately
responsible I must tip my hat to canned kernels.


On Mon, 8 Jul 2002 17:14:35 -0400 (EDT)
"Net Llama!" <netllama at linux-sxs.org> wrote:

> If you're going to be playing these slick games
> with kernels, it would prolly be better if you built your own, so that
> you are sure what is in it.  Otherwise you could end up introducing all
> kinds of instabilities to the system if you're running a kernel on it
> that didn't come with it.