SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
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.
There is less than 2 hours left to vote in the 2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards. Click here to go to the polls. Vote now and make sure your voice is heard!
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
I'm curious if anyone get's a real performance boost from the generic kernel over the huge kernel in Slackware 12? I know loading only the needed modules saves memory, but does it really matter in this case?
And what happened to the custom kernels like bare.i, sata.i, and scsi.s? Why were they removed in 12?
I don't think anybody would get a huge performance boost using generic instead of huge. It's not done for performance reasons, but mainly to keep things clean and in order. Also, you can experience some problems with udev when using huge. Nothing major, but still annoying.
Distribution: Switched to regualr Ubuntu, because I don't like KDE4, at all. Looks like vista on crack.....
I did a little test a few years ago on a debian box. I was having some trouble figuring out which module was correct for my network card. This was back when it wasn't always easy to get debian configured. I got a little angry and threw a geek tantrum. I recompiled my kernel, and enabled every damn thing I could. And I mean everything. This was on a modest box. 900Mhz cpu, 512mb of ram. Didn't notice a bit of difference. They both ran the same. I think back in the day it really mattered, but with modern hardware, I doubt you'd even notice the difference for the average desktop. I didn't anyway. But I use kde too, so obviously I don't need fine tuned performance. The average desktop has the memory and cpu cycles to spare....
If you compile a new one for your architecture, then it will definitely be faster. The difference between huge and generic is much smaller, usually not noticeable or perhaps even existent. But, you'll have fewer issues with the generic kernel.