On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 22:49, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On 4 Aug 2003, Mr. Adam ALLEN wrote: > > > 2.6 = in development, not stable, testing only. You really need to get > > your hands dirty to work with 2.6. > > oh, come now, don't be so melodramatic. configuring, building and > booting a 2.6 pre-release is no more difficult than one of the 2.4 > kernels -- in fact, it's easier given the more pleasant graphical > configuration tool. > > and working with it now means that, when the switch is eventually made, > you won't be so thoroughly traumatized like the rest of the world. > you can just sit there, smug, saying, "been there, done that." > but it's not entirely plain sailing- there's a chance it could all go tits up, and much more can go wrong when building a new kernel than just installing the latest errata version. I made the assumption that not building a kernel would be a better option than just installing the binary in this case... (hint from the subject). Although I have no idea if this is a production system or not. Planning to get the "Been there and half done it T-shirt" ;-) -- Regards, Adam Allen. adam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx pgp http://search.keyserver.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=adam%40dynamicinteraction.co.uk
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
