On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Baarda) wrote: > On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 06:19:23PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > > For such things instead of trying to patch a Debian kernel source tree or > > a kernel.org tree I recommend taking a working and tested kernel source > > tree such as that from Red Hat (which also fixes other bugs that may > > affect you in future). > > Man, that's sad... a Debian list having to recommend a RedHat kernel...
Look on the bright side. At least you know that on a Debian list you'll get the best answer on technical merits. Producing a good kernel for serious server use is a lot of work. Red Hat has many good kernel coders working 40+ hours a week on back-porting code from 2.6, writing drivers for various unsupported hardware, and merging the best patches that float by the l-k list. There's no reason for Debian to try to reproduce this effort, the Red Hat kernel source is entirely GPL, there's no reason not to use it. I've been meaning to package it for Debian... -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
