12 Aug
2004
12 Aug
'04
3:57 p.m.
Lee Revell wrote:
On Thu, 2004-08-12 at 12:05, Russell Hanaghan wrote:
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
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.