On 1/22/06, Timothy Murphy <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I still think it is a bad idea to install the new kernel automatically. > The worst thing that can happen for a newbie > is that he turns on his laptop and it doesn't work. > I regard kernel and distribution as orthogonal, > and would rather keep them separate. > I don't find it very onerous to go through the Grub menu, > and choose the kernel (or OS) I want. If you don't find it difficult to use the grub menu to find the kernel you want.. why is it so bad if the new updates become the default? new kernel comes out with security fixes... it gets installed and becomes the default it has a regression.. user notices the regression and then boots into the backup kernel from the grub menu... user then reports bugs about the regression. I don't see the problem with this picture. Regressions suck.. but the backup kernel is still on the system to use if someone runs into regressions. Unless people hit those regressions and report those regressions back to the maintainer there's very little hope that those functionality regressions will be fixed. Security kernel updates are very important, I don't see it as an appropriate trade off to make the security update kernels optional to avoid potential regressions. Anyone running a system which needs to avoid reboots into kernel updates because of ciritical production situations should configure their system appropriately at install time and should be aware of the impact on security by not using the security update kernels. if the new kernel comes out and isn't the default.. how many users will "remember" to use the grub menu to select the new kernel.. instead of just booting in the kernel that was the default? > > The most important issue for a newbie (and for me) > is that whatever OS I am using > should work with the least possible trouble. > Everything else - including security - can come later. Its interesting that you don't include closing known security vulnerabilities in your "least possible trouble" definition. From where I sit, known security vulnerabilities are trouble. I disagree with your ranking of priorities... its very easy to reboot into the backup kernel if there is a regression. its not so easy for users to understand the implications of security and how much "trouble" vulnerabilities mayb cause. I think its in the userbase's best interest for the updates to prefer known security updates over unknown stability issues. -jef -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list