[CentOS] Is the unsupported kernel considered stable-ish?
tengel at fluid.com
Sat Mar 25 01:59:32 UTC 2006
Craig White wrote:
> OS 9 is pretty much dead. You shouldn't need the appletalk kernel module
> with OS X systems.
You presuppose that OS9 is dead -- maybe for you. We run a mixed
environment where some things work in 9, some in X. And even with X,
some things need AFP not SMB. What I should and shouldn't need isn't of
concern in my post -- I asked about the contents of the unsupported
kernel. You're out in left field with your opinions.
> as for turning an upgrade ugly...I think you are making a mountain out
> of a molehill...if that's all you got to bitch about - you should be
> very happy when you see how easy it is...
You completely misunderstand the question -- trust me, I know how to
install a kernel. :) The question is what *other* things are in
unsupported, and are they stable. Sure, I can install the kernel -- but
what happens to... I dunno, my 2940U2W card using the aic7xxx module.
Does unsupported enable risky code?
I've been unable to find a doc that indicates a comparison of normal to
unsupported. Hence, I cannot tell if using it will effect normal
operation for anything else. Know of such a doc?
> I actually considered not responding because of the whining tone of your
> email. I hope that you are downloading the 2.0.3 netatalk source and
> compiling it yourself.
I have been building public custom RPMS for it for over 5 years, thank
you (feel free to Google). My need is 1.6.4a to maintain a CNID scheme
with other servers, there is more than one Appletalk server onsite.
Thanks for your holier-than-thou attitude, I love it! Keep 'em coming,
maybe I can return the favour some day.
Troy Engel | Systems Engineer
Fluid Inc. | http://www.fluid.com
More information about the CentOS