Lee Revell wrote: > On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 12:05, Russell Hanaghan wrote: > >>And now, darn it...you got me thinking I should try! Are there any >>advantages to compiling and leaving out the bunches of crap I don't ever >>use that are built in the kernel? Like resources, memory, speed savings >>of any sort? >> > > > No, absolutely not. 99.99% of Linux users should use their vendor's > kernel. It has undergone a LOT more stability testing than whatever you > would compile off of kernel.org. > > You should only use a kernel.org kernel if you need some feature or > driver that your vendor's kernel does not provide, or, obviously, if you > are hacking the kernel. If you go this route you should attempt to > build a binary package for your distribution, then install that. This > way you can post the packages somewhere, and other people who need a > custom kernel for their own purposes can just download your packages vs. > repeating all that work. I think he was asking a different Q: he was asking about advantages of using compiled as opposed to pre-built kernel, you are comparing distro kernel to vanilla kernel. IMO: in general I think it makes sense to compile kernel because you get exactly what you need plus you can experiment with different setting to see if you get better performance etc. I tend to use the kernel source package for my distro (mostly because it can build a package that can be installed, which takes care of having LILO option to boot former kernel etc.) erik
