Thanks for the advices. Yes, I agree with you about keeping kernel updates is better. But I am new to my company and they did not update the kernel so they are "stuck" with the old 2.6.32 kernel. So, here I am ! Asking questions to know how it would be the nice way to update it :) Mylène Le 28/06/2013 11:36, Alexandru Juncu a écrit : > Though the kernel is the heart of the operating system, it's not the > only thing that makes the things go. Putting in a new kernel, isn't > necessarily the answer to all the problems of a system. > Because the userspace utilities are just as important, and you need to > keep them too up to date. Because some versions of a (core) program > might use things that were supported in a version, but not anymore > (this shouldn't happen in a perfect world, but since we're living in > real life, this could happen). > > As a best practice, I find that you should update your system > regularly. Updating from version 1 to 2, then to 3 after a couple of > months, then to 4 when that is release usually goes a lot smoother > than going from 1 to 4. Reinstalling the entire distribution would be > a better option, but not always possible in production. > > You could just try each version (starting with the LTS ones) until you > find one that works for you. > > On 28 June 2013 12:23, Mylene Josserand<Mylene.Josserand@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> okay ! Thank you for the explanation, Alexandru. >> I see it more clearly :) >> >> What I really want ? Hum, it is for a production purpose. >> We already use a kernel but it a 2.6.32.59 version. >> >> We have some problems and we thought to update it. I had updated it to a >> 3.8 kernel but, of what you say, I should have updated it to a longterm >> version. Which one should I use ? >> In the links you gave me, I see that the 2.6.32 will become EOL in 2014 >> and 2.6.34 and 3.0 in 2013. The 3.2 will become an EOL in 2016. Should I >> update to this one ? >> >> And we encountered some problems (about CAN controller to be precise). >> In the CAN mailist, Luka Rahne has the same problem has ours with the >> 3.0.3 kernel. He tested the 3.0.81 and the problem seems to be gone. So, >> also, I wanted to know if the possibly fix between 3.0.3 and 3.0.81 >> would have been spreaded to other kernels ? other long term ? stable ? >> >> Thank you again ! >> >> >> Mylène >> >> >> >> Le 28/06/2013 10:51, Alexandru Juncu a écrit : >>> On 28 June 2013 11:37, Mylene Josserand<Mylene.Josserand@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> >>>> I would like to know how the Linux Kernel are updated. >>>> I know that there is the long term kernels, the last stables and the >>>> mainline. >>>> First, what is the real difference between stable and longterm ? >>>> >>>> I see in the Linux Kernel website that the date of the long term (and >>>> the revision number) is changing so I was thinking that there are some >>>> updates on it, right ? >>>> >>>> For example, when an important bug has been fixed, is it fixed in the >>>> new release kernel only ? Or is it applied on old kernels ? Only the >>>> long term ? All ? >>>> >>>> So if I am using the long term 3.4.49 for example (and the current is >>>> 3.4.51), I can just update the 3.4.49 to get the important bugs fix that >>>> have been fixed in the new release (so 3.9.8 right now ?). >>>> >>>> >>>> And if you have some documentation about it, it would be nice ! >>>> >>>> >>>> Thank you in advance ! >>> >>> Hello! >>> >>> kernel.org [0] is your friend. There is a page explaining the release types [1]. >>> >>> In short, Malnline is the newest but somewhat unstable. It's where >>> everything is tested with new features. It compiles, but it not real >>> world tested. >>> When a version is battle tested and does good without doing bad in the >>> real world, it's called stable. >>> >>> The long term versions are ones that are considered milestones. Those >>> kernels could be used in production for many years because they will >>> be patched with security updates, but nothing major will change in >>> their architecture, so the administrator won't have to worry that if >>> he applies a patch it will break the production server. >>> >>> Hopefully I'm not offending anyone with this comparison, but think >>> about it as the Ubuntu versions, if you are familiar with them. You >>> have a new release every 6 months, that has new features, That's >>> stable. Like 13.04. But once every two years they have a long term >>> support version (like 10.04, 12.04, 14.04) that you can rely on for >>> many years. They will be patched for vulnerabilities (ex. 12.04.1 >>> probably has secutiy patches like 12.10, but won't have it's new >>> features). >>> >>> So now it's a matter of what you want? Do you want to use it in >>> production? Maybe you would want a tong term version. Want to use it >>> for your own use? Probably you want the stable. Want to develop new >>> features? You might go for the mainline. >>> >>> Hope it helps. >>> >>> [0] https://www.kernel.org/ >>> [1] https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html _______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
