Adieu, Fedora

[Patrick Bartek]

--- On Mon, 6/13/11, Tom H <tomh0665 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:02 PM,
> Patrick Bartek <bartek047 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Not all that old. I'm running kernel 2.6.32-5-amd64 on
> the Debian 6 VM, which
> > I haven't checked lately to see if there's an update.
> My current kernel for F12
> > is 2.6.32.26-175 64-bit. Not that much difference.
> Remember, my hardware
> > is 6 years old. Plus, I can always recompile.
> 
> For "pure" Debian 6, you'll have 2.6.32 until Debian 7's
> released in
> the same way that RHEL 6 and Ubuntu 10.04 are pegged to
> 2.6.32 for
> their lifetimes.

I don't have a problem with that.  Once a system is built, it rarely is changed.  I usually only change it when hardware breaks.  So, I don't need the latest, most current kernel as long as everything works.

ASIDE:  I don't know where this almost pathological compulsion by some to have the newest, latest of something or they'll just die came from.  I'm certainly not afflicted with it.  I replace things when they break, but don't just because a newer version has been released.

> If you want a newer kernel (or newer anything else), you
> can either
> use the backport repositories or enable the
> testing/unstable ones
> (unless you want to recompile).

I stay away from the testing/unstable repos.  Stability is my number one requirement.

Sometimes I'll recompile a kernel for efficiency to get rid of unneeded modules, but that's it.  However, I don't know if it does any real good these days with  gigahertz, multi-core CPUs and gigabytes of RAM, but I don't like having anything on a system that is not needed.

Thanks for your input.

B