new kernel

[ravehd01]

i have dl the new 2.6 kernel and want to install it over the 2.4 that is already on there. do i uncompress it, then make, then make install or what?

[borimrr]

I did the same thing a few days ago and found how to do everything here http://www.openaddict.com/how_to_com...ware_11_0.html

[ravehd01]

thanks for the info

[borimrr]

If you have problems opening the file to edit using the "nano" command like I did, just open it through your interface instead of opening it through the konsole.

[balalin]

i have dl the new 2.6 kernel and want to install it over the 2.4 that is already on there. do i uncompress it, then make, then make install or what?

After uncompressing the tared file u need to configure the kernel.
After configuring make ,make modules,make modules_install,make instal

[kern]

repeat, for the 15,000th time

you do not need to build a 2.6 kernel for slackware yourself - just use the packages on CD2.



once more.

you do not need to build a 2.6 kernel - use the binary packages on the second CD.

[jin_1644]

repeat, for the 15,000th time

you do not need to build a 2.6 kernel for slackware yourself - just use the packages on CD2.



once more.

you do not need to build a 2.6 kernel - use the binary packages on the second CD.

I think that compile kernel itself is better than install from packages. There are some advantages anda disadvantages on each methods. one method gives a quick way, and the other gives a better performance.

[kern]

The performance is negligable, you spend hours more compiling.

plus pats kernel is optimised for dual core / HT nowadays anyway. Theres little point in cutting down the module tree if those modules aren't for your hardware and therefore are never loaded anyway.

I find theres little to no point compiling your own kernels anymore, I only used to do it to add SMP support anyway. now thats already enabled in the 2.6 binary kernel and modules packages.. I dont need to anymore.

[borimrr]

I think that compile kernel itself is better than install from packages. There are some advantages anda disadvantages on each methods. one method gives a quick way, and the other gives a better performance.

I agree, compiling it is the best choice and more reliable especially on such distro as slackware.

[mahlerfan]

I agree with Kern, compiling your own kernel won't give you fantastic speed improvements. You recompile the kernel for hardware support or a feature that you want. A compelling reason for me to switch kernels is the fuse kernel module in 2.6.20 so that I can use ntfs-3g and write to ntfs partitions (Windows).

One of the points in why it's cool that linux is modular is so that having support for hardware that you might not have won't cut down on performance, but if you use different hardware, it can be loaded without a recompile or even so much as a reboot. It's the ideal compromise between a fast (if customized) monolithic kernel and a portable microkernel.

You should rejoice in the fact that linux uses a kernel so powerful and flexible that most of the time you don't have to touch it.