netsecl.myfreeforum.org

johnm · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 53

Hi Iuri,

How about: 1. a Slackware paranoid 2.4 kernel 2. a generic paranoid 2.4 kernel 3. a Slackware paranoid 2.6 kernel ???????????

NetSecL users might be able to fix some problems simply by chosing a different kernel at installation time.

Peac,

John

admin · Site Admin Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 103

Hi John,
The use of 2.4 kernels is deprecated. They have problems with the new versions of udev, don't recognize some of the new hardware, take unneeded space on HDD - I'll think about reincluding it, but it causes more trouble than good actually. All other major distros have one generic 2.6.x kernel. What kind of problems do you expect to be solved with the different kernels?

johnm · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 53

On Thu Dec 28, 2006 9:40 pm Iuri posted:

The use of 2.4 kernels is deprecated. They have problems with the new versions of udev, don't recognize some of the new hardware, take unneeded space on HDD - I'll think about reincluding it, but it causes more trouble than good actually. All other major distros have one generic 2.6.x kernel. What kind of problems do you expect to be solved with the different kernels?

Hi Iuri,

The 2.4 kernels might work better on older hardware. The Compaq that I bought, not so long ago, is already older hardware.

I read a review of 11.0 a few weeks ago that stated that the 2.6 kernel is still considered expierimental. So as long as we are based on Slackware, a 2.4 kernel might not be a bad idea.

Peace,

John

admin · Site Admin Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 103

Hi John,
2.6.x kernels support the old hardware+new one. Try it on your Compaq and tell me how it performed. Since 2.6.18 Linux became Realtime Operating System which means that aspecially on older hardware it will perform much faster. I've tested the distro on a 166 MHz Pentium MMX - it does perform normally I don't see any differense myself.