Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
When I set up 9.04, with the help of a friend, I set up a custom kernel and was wondering if I upgrade to 9.10, will have to redo the whole kernel or will it keep the same kernel.
Thanks.
Upgrades usually go with the next stable kernel for the release.
You should be able to upgrade everything without having to rebuild the kernel.
I's check the ubuntuforums first.
Upgrading will generally put a newer kernel on your system, but you can still choose the old kernel from the grub menu and it should work. What do you need a custom kernel for anyhow? It's possible the newer Ubuntu kernels might support the functionality you needed in the custom kernel.
Well, I'm using a 7 year old computer, so the kernel is built for that.
That's hardly an argument. Older kernels have more bugs and vulnerabilities. My main desktop machine is also seven or eight years old and has no problem running a current kernel.
The only thing to consider is when you have 3rd party drivers, like the ati or nvidia ones. The latest kernel might not be always supported by these, but that doesn't seem to be your case.
That's hardly an argument. Older kernels have more bugs and vulnerabilities. My main desktop machine is also seven or eight years old and has no problem running a current kernel.
The only thing to consider is when you have 3rd party drivers, like the ati or nvidia ones. The latest kernel might not be always supported by these, but that doesn't seem to be your case.
Oh ok, well, my friend that helped me build just said that would be best, so I didn't know. How can I find out if the new kernel would suffice for my machine?
If the old kernel works, the new one will work as well. Updates add features, very rarely remove them.
There could be some manual configuration needed though. For example, if you have IDE drives and your old kernel is using the old IDE drivers, and the new one uses the PATA drivers instead, then the names of the drives will change from hda, hdb... to sda, sdb and so on. That can require some fixing in /etc/fstab and probably grub.conf (or lilo.conf or whatever you are using).
But you really should stay up to date, using the last stable version of either 2.6.x or 2.4.x, unless there's a true reason not to (like a conflict with closed drivers, as said before).
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.