On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 08:04:31 -0400 Haines Brown <hai...@histomat.net> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:45:47PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Jul 2015, Haines Brown wrote: > > > At kernel.org, there's available a stable kernel 4.1.2 dated 10 > > > July. Although I've never ventured to compile a kernel, I suspect I > > > could download the tarball and try to compile it. Or am I on the wrong > > > track? > > > > You might want to reconsider that. 4.1.2 is too new, it is not nearly as > > safe as you might think to use that kernel. > > Henrique, your advice is much appreciated. I have come to understand > that the distribution kernels differ from Linus' kernels and it is wise > to stick with the former. I'm no kernel expert, but I think Henrque's point is mainly to warn against using kernels that are too new. I personally tend to pick an upstream version tagged as longterm, use it for a while (upgrading as new point versions are released), and then move to a later longterm when available and convenient. E.g., I'm currently on 3.18.x, about to upgrade to 3.18.18. What do the experts think? Would there be appreciable gain from sticking to Debian kernels? I guess an obvious advantage to sticking with them is ease of maintenance and inventory, although since I'm using kernel-package, upgrading is simply: git pull make-kpkg dpkg -i xxxx I tend to assume that using vanilla upstream is good, since security patches get pushed out faster, but OTOH, the Debian kernel team obviously knows all that, too. Celejar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150712140138.7d705b402b510c771155c...@gmail.com
