| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Monday 29 December 2008 01:06:59 Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>> I'm not that much of a cynic though. Instead I'll recommend you find a |
| 5 |
>>> set of desktop patches that work well and roll a kernel from those. The |
| 6 |
>>> kernel devs are mostly paid by organizations that have a vested interest |
| 7 |
>>> in having Linux work fabulously on big iron, so that's where the focus |
| 8 |
>>> will tend to go. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>>> This is opensource, where you get to bash the code into any shape you |
| 11 |
>>> need to get it to suit your needs :-) I myself don't need desktop patches |
| 12 |
>>> (yet), but if I did, I would probably first look at the patches the |
| 13 |
>>> Ubuntu kernel devs apply, followed by fedora |
| 14 |
>>> |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> |
| 17 |
>>> |
| 18 |
>> I use the Gentoo sources so why don't they patch them? I've tried |
| 19 |
>> patching kernels before and it didn't work to well. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> You'll have to ask the gentoo devs why they apply the patches they do. After |
| 23 |
> all, not every patch set out there will suit their goals and purposes. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I was curious if they know some desktop puters are even having this |
| 28 |
problem or not. After all, if they don't know, they won't even consider |
| 29 |
patching it then. I'm just sticking with 2.6.23 I guess. It works well. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Dale |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
:-) :-) |
Archives