Linux - KernelThis forum is for all discussion relating to the Linux kernel.
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.
I don't know anything about Linux, but I'm setting things up for a Slackware 10.2 install. I understand Slack comes with an older kernal. Now, of course I know nothing about kernal replacement either (kernals are yellow things lined up in rows on corn cobs, right?), but I can learn.
I'm just wondering if I should update the kernal "on the way in", i.e. as I do my install. Wouldn't it be a more complicated process once I'd set up my whole Linux system? Or does it not matter?
If I do go for it now, umóexactly where and how do I get my shiny new Slackware kernal?
I actually installed the latest kernel from kernel.org after I installed Slack. (Thank you Pat for not using a modified version of the kernel source in Slackware) I am told that there could be some compatibly errors when upgrading from 2.4 to 2.6 but I have yet to see any myself. If you install any needed package from the testing/linux-2.6* directory from the Slackware medium, it should cover any compatability errors. If you do not feel like downloading a kernel, the source to 18.104.22.168 (I belive) is on the install medium as well under the same directory.
I would strongly recommend compiling your own kernel. It is the heart and sole of linux and is a great learning experience. I would suggest setting up your boot loader to give you the option to pick which kernel to boot to, just in case
Let me know if you have any additional questions about the compiling process.
This Kernel Rebuild Guide will tell you everything you need to know about rebuilding your kernel. In a couple of threads I've posted the simple steps to build and install a 2.6 series kernel for Slackware.
This is one of the major differences between Linux, Windows and Mac. You can rebuild the kernel under Linux. The kernel contains modules (drivers) for your hardware. If you successfully compile a custom kernel, you can remove support for all the hardware you don't have. In the process of rebuilding your kernel, you will learn a great deal about your hardware.
The differences between Slackware-10.2's default 2.4.31 kernel, and the latest 22.214.171.124, are pretty drastic. However, if all your hardware is supported under 2.4.31, you don't *need* to rebuild. Slackware-10.2 comes with a 2.6 kernel under testing, and you can even install with it. There are instructions for doing this, and if you don't follow them, you probably can't even boot your system.
I prefer to build my own kernels rather than using even Pat's kernels in Slackware. They still lack support for some of my USB devices, so I'd have to recompile them. Therefore, I just use the source from http://kernel.org
Drkstr and Chinaman (150 miles down the Pacific coast and from all the way across the Pacific Ocean), thank you. Okay, I shall build my kernal. I'll read about it today.
Originally Posted by Chinaman
You can rebuild the kernel under Linux.
Hmmm . . . but to build or to rebuild a kernal, I'll have to have some sort of access to Linux. I shall read how that works. Of course I have access via my install CDs for Slackware (plus I have various "live" CDs, such as Ubuntu), so no doubt there is a way to do that. At this moment, however, no Linux is living on my machine, so I'll be making the kernal "on the way in"—haha!—which appeals to me!
Thank you both. :-)
[EDIT: I think I know what I'll do. I was going to put both Slack 10.2 and Ubuntu on, anyway. I'll see if I can get Ubuntu set up first. That will give me Linux. Then I can take my time and use Ubuntu to make a nice careful Slackware install, featuring my very own custom-made kernal.]
You cannot build a kernel without a Linux distribution. You must build the kernel on a running Linux machine. This is my suggestion -- it's worth all you paid for it.
Install Slackware-10.2 now. Use DaniŽl de Kok's guide to help you. As soon as you reboot after installing, run as root "adduser <username>" where you will of course select what's appropriate. And be certain to save all your files under that /home/username directory. Also, save a copy of anything you modify on your system in that directory. Play with it, rebuild a kernel, have a good time!
Then in a month or so (maybe more), Slackware-11.0 will come out with a 2.6.16.x kernel. Get those first two CDs and install right over your previous system, but don't format /home -- just mount it. Then you'll have the newest Slackware with all your data saved.
This is an oversimplification, but I'm sure you get the point.
Chinaman, thanks again. I am going to follow your advice to the letter.
Just one more question ;-) Actually I would have a choice about the install in a month. I have two good partitions available for Linux. One is for Slackware, and one is for Ubuntu. They are on different drives. Since modifying my partitions following the advice I was given recently, I can set up both the 2 distros, as planned—BUT, I don't really have to put Ubuntu on at all. Can you tell me if the installation "on-top-of" in a month, as you mentioned above, will be absolutely as good as a brand new install?
If it is, no problem.
If a brand new install is actually better, I can set Slackware up now where I was going to put Ubuntu. I can leave the "real" Slackware partition empty for a month. Then, when the new kernel comes out, I could make a brand new Slack install over to the partition I had kept in waiting.
When you install Slackware, there are some configuration files that you might want to change for your personal situation. These will be under the /etc directory. If you don't change any of them, you can install fresh, not formatting /home, and you will have the same setup (except maybe for /etc/fstab). NB: Even though you don't format /home you must give a partition that mount point, and let Slackware mount it.
If you make your partitions / (root), /home and swap then you'll only need to format swap and / and do not format /home and
the installation "on-top-of" in a month, as you mentioned above, will be absolutely as good as a brand new install
That will be a "brand new Slack install" since the operating system would be all under / and /home will just contain your personal files.
Why not install Ubuntu, also? It may suit your tastes better than Slackware. If not, you can always remove it later. If I had not tried RedHat and Debian before Slackware, I would not have known that Slackware is far superior to those distros.
(This post has changed drastically as various questions have answered themselves!)
Yesterday I prepared the primary 8 GB Linux /(root) on the end of the slave HDD, for either Ubuntu or Slackware.
My plans were to next set up Linux logicals in the 10 GB at the end of the extended partition on the master HDD.
I'm still looking at the first 8 GB, though. It isn't readily divisible, without my disrupting a nicely set up array of about 50 active Windows programs (and all their associated icons, immaculately laid out; and various automated overnight call-ups) in logical drive (T: ).
[I always use letters from the first half of the alphabet for Windows partitions on the first HDD. I use letters from the second half of the alphabet for the second HDD—except for
(V: ) and (W: ), which I give to the CD and DVD R/Ws. Just my preference.]
However, I could resize and reformat anyway. I could move the programs out of the way, do the resizing and reformatting, and set up a new Linux group in logical partitions. There are several other Windows partitions, but they are all easy ones. I would end up with a new Windows (T: ) partition, now a primary, and I'd return all those Windows programs to it. My belief is that they would continue functioning as though nothing had been changed. A very interesting experiment!
Chinaman, thanks. Yes, Slackware is my favourite, and I'll also use Ubuntu, as you suggested.
I have a 1gb partition on my hard drive that I use for a very minimal Slack install. The purpose for this install is for disaster recovery and only contains tools I would use in the case of an emergency. Just give your boot loader the option to pick which Install to boot to. I have used this in the past when I messed up a few critical pieces of my primary install. All I had to do was boot to the recovery install, mount my other drives, and preform the necessary fixes.
Wow! What a good idea! Thanks, drkstr. I'll do that for sure. Ideally, that install should be on the opposing hard drive, because it would also be valuable if a hard drive ever failed.
PLEASE NOTE: I am beginning another thread, still under Slackware, called
(Pre Install) Partition Size Information?, at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...68#post2242768
This is to keep the thread title in sync with the discussion. I am now just clearing away my final questions to be sure I'm not making any obvious mistakes, and then away I go, with both Ubuntu and Slackware. Once again, I hope everyone who has helped me so much hears my gratitude. :-)