Personal computing discussed

Moderators: SecretSquirrel, notfred

 
Coldfirex
Graphmaster Gerbil
Topic Author
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Wed Jan 02, 2002 9:59 pm

Why is it when I use the system update program in Mandrake it recommends not use it for new kernels? Why would it show it as new software and offer to install it if they dont "like it."?
Thanks
 
Sneedes
Gerbil
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Thu Jan 03, 2002 11:02 pm

That doesn't make much sense does it. If they don't 'recommend' it, then why display the option to.

My only guess why they don't recommend kernel updates is because it may hose your system. A kernel upgrade can be a significant change to the system. And the point of Mandrake's update utility is to keep it simple.

Sneedes
 
Forge
Lord High Gerbil
Posts: 8138
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: SouthEast PA

Fri Jan 04, 2002 4:33 am

Sneedes has it. It's a pretty major thing to swap kernels, and although it should work fine, it's not something you want to be doing if you don't need to.

Compiling kernels is great once you know your hardware, though, as it gives you a core to your OS that is perfectly tuned to the exact hardware you have.
 
cRock
Gerbil First Class
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2001 7:00 pm
Location: pimpin the ATL

Fri Jan 04, 2002 11:55 am

Riddle me this:

On a FreeBSD system when you upgrade to a newer kernel you also upgrade to new userland utilities. This would tend to make sense because kernel changes can effect userland binaries that access low level kernel functions. To make life easy, you just run make buildword and it builds the entire base system, viola.

On Linux, it seems like the kernel is usually the only thing that ever gets updated. Does Linus just require that no major changes can occur that effect userland binaries (with the exception of version changes like 2.2 to 2.4)? Is there some other method to what appears to be madness? Does this partially explain why Linux systems don't always display that famed stability?
 
SecretSquirrel
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2159
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Colony, TX (Dallas suburb)
Contact:

Sat Feb 23, 2002 2:08 am

On 2002-01-04 10:55, cRock wrote:
Riddle me this:

On a FreeBSD system when you upgrade to a newer kernel you also upgrade to new userland utilities. This would tend to make sense because kernel changes can effect userland binaries that access low level kernel functions. To make life easy, you just run make buildword and it builds the entire base system, viola.

On Linux, it seems like the kernel is usually the only thing that ever gets updated. Does Linus just require that no major changes can occur that effect userland binaries (with the exception of version changes like 2.2 to 2.4)? Is there some other method to what appears to be madness? Does this partially explain why Linux systems don't always display that famed stability?


I would expect that your latter guess may be right. Though I must say, taken a machine from early 2.2.x up to 2.4.1 with no difficulty. The only thing that complaing was the nfsd init script because lockd is no longer a seperate daemon (or something like that, I forget right off hand). Most of the userland utilities, at least that I use, are far enough removed from the kernel that it doesn't matter. One exception to this, for me, is IPtables. It's user utilities directly modified the behavior of kernel activites.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest