Stay with RH9? / Compiling Kernel is Better?

The fact you even ask about recompiling the kernal shows one of the most
glaring weaknesses of Linux. Imagine the outcry if Microsoft sais everyone
had to recompile Windows XP to get it to work on their machine. This is
about the same thing.

On Sunday 18 January 2004 13:04, Craig Brooksby wrote:
> Two unrelated questions:
>
> 1) I use RH9, and like Frank and Austin, I see April coming. I know
> there are many more like us on this list.
>
> The prospect of backing my data up; formatting the harddrive and doing a
> fresh install of [fedora, debian, whatever], then reinstalling all the
> applications I use, and then all my data -- gives me the hives. I'm too
> much a newbie.
>
> Nothing is worse than getting stuck midstream. I can't afford it! If I
> undertake step A in that process, I must be confident of getting all the
> way to step N. I cannot tolerate bogging down -- this machine is
> mission-critical for me.
>
> I know there are a lot of people happily running RH7.3 etc. What if I
> decide just to ride out 2004 (or 2005) on RH9? Is that a dumb idea?
>
> 2) My machine (athlon 2200+) reports itself as an i686 architecture, yet
> I regularly install rpms etc. for i386. My kernel is for i386.
>
> If I compile my own kernel on this machine, do I then have an i686
> kernel? It that better / faster / more stable?
>
> --- Craig
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss