[SlugLUG] New Member Here!

[cerise at armory.com]

On Wed, Sep 20, 2006 at 04:24:38PM -0700, Ignacio Solis wrote:
> If there is a bug fix then there was a problem with the old kernel. A valid
> reason to update.
> 
> "Presumed betterness" could also be seen as "presumed new bugs/exploits
> introduced", so "presumed" doesn't really mean much.

The possibility is there.  That is true.  However, the history of the kernel
has shown without doubt that new bugs are better than old bugs.

Failing anything else, you're doing the kernel team a favor by staying up to
date.  It's the least you could do for them.

> > 2) New modules/functionality in the kernel.
> 
> If you don't need any of the new modules or functionality, why add them? It's
> just more code that needs to be right.

I find with each passing kernel that it's amazing how much new code I didn't
know I wanted before I started on the config process for the new one.  ; )

> > Incidentally, keeping up on the kernel usually saves you a headache later on
> > when you find out that suddenly devfs has disappeared or that ide-scsi isn't
> > used for CD writes anymore.
> 
> That, however, is a good reason. "Update because you have to". Basically,
> because other services/programs/functionality depend on the upgrade.
> 
> However, Debian doesn't normally let that happen, it'll let you know that you
> need to update a kernel because you need to keep something working. So, if the
> default kernel for Debian stable changes, it's normally for a good reason.
> 
> A counterpoint would be that a new kernel might require new configuration, so
> the fact that ide-scsi is not used to write CDs any more is only a problem if
> you upgrade the kernel, otherwise the old kernel would have continued doing
> what it was doing just fine.

As with all eventual problems, it's just a matter of time before they comes home
to roost.  It's much easier to deal with single problems as they arise on an
update than to deal with the 30 or so that you've been procrastinating on when
you discover that you absolutely must update.

Of course, I also wouldn't trust any maintainer between me and the mainline
kernel if I didn't need to.  It's rare that anyone else cares much about PLIP,
tc, the traffic shaper, or ADFS support for example.
 
> Debian kernels are not plain kernels (like most distros) and contain backports
> of the patches needed to keep the kernel stable and bug free, so it's not just
> "an old kernel".

Additionally, I'd rather worry about the bugs that in the current vanilla 
kernel and not the bugs which may have been introduced from patches.

The problem with floppy drives in 2.4.19 comes to mind.

-Phil/CERisE