Shane Hathaway shane at
Fri Sep 2 01:03:40 MDT 2005

Gabriel Gunderson wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 22:50 -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote:
>>(Tangent: I find Linus' kernels to be much more stable than
>>distribution kernels; anyone else have the same experience?  This is
>>contrary to the wisdom I hear on the net.  Maybe it's because I
>>configure the kernel for specific machines rather than throw in every
>>driver available.)
> I think you will see less of this as time goes by.  I hear a lot of talk
> about how they are not trying to deliver a finished product like you
> would expect someone like Red Hat to deliver.  They realize that the
> majority of kernels in the wild were packaged by a distro and they don't
> seem to want to duplicate that effort when they could be working on the
> next big thing.  I'm not saying you can't run a vanilla kernel, I'm just
> saying that they are not trying to productize it.

Isn't the new four-level versioning system evidence of moving *toward* 
stability in the vanilla kernel?  They saw a lot of distributions 
duplicating the work of stabilizing the vanilla kernel, so they 
centralized much of that work.

> Now, kernel stability should be up to your distro.  If you can't get a
> stable kernel from them... then it's time to jump ship.  In three years
> with Red Hat (and now CentOS) kernels I've only seen one (1) kernel
> panic and it was my fault for messing with the modules for digium
> hardware (zaptel).  I don't know how others have done with them. YMMV.

It was on Red Hat that I learned about kernel instability. ;-)


More information about the PLUG mailing list