Hello,

I have a new computer with AMD Athalon X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+ 2.4Ghz, 128MB nVidia GeForce 7350 LE video card, nVidia integrated NIC, Lightscribe DVD drive, 1 GB RAM, DSL, integrated audio, HP AIO printer, etc. I plan on using this computer as a development/multimedia/multimedia_editing platform. My question is - which kernel would be better suited to my needs, the 2.4 or the 2.6 kernel? I am leaning towards the 2.6 kernel unless I hear some compelling reasons to remain with the 2.4 kernel.

I got a similar processor as yours, and I prefer to stick to 2.6.x series.
I don't even know if a 2.4.x kernel would work properly on my machine

I just recompiled from 2.6.17.14 to 2.6.20.1 and it worked on the first try!!!

Linux prevails

Hello,

I tried to compile my kernel once before and I had alot of difficulties setting all the options and knowing what to enable and not to enable and compile into the kernel and what to have as a module. Very confusing and intimidating to me.

But, I am thinking of again trying to compile my own kernel, but I need a very good guide to hold my hand through the process.

A great free guide can be found here:

http://www.kroah.com/lkn/

What I usually do is start with a .config from another kernel and strip it down, rather than going through all the options (which can take hours). In 2 weeks, I will again attempt to go through the menu and build one from scratch using the above guide.

This guide, was the one I used through my first kernel recompile, some years ago

Even with a lot of expertise, upgrading kernel can go wrong, that's why I was amazed of getting 2.6.20.1 fine on the first try. Changing several versions tends to be more compicated, in general.

Give it a try Learning won't hurt, in general...

It's really quite easy. Though I used menuconfig for a long time at first, I find xconfig to be more user friendly. And the first time or so, compile ALL your selections right into the kernel; that way, you will see if it works without having to worry about module loading and that stuff.
Later, you can remove much of it if you choose, leaving in the necessary video and harddisk/filetype stuff so it can boot; most of the other stuff can be left as modules if you like.
I still tend to compile close to 100% right in; it's simpler, IMO.
One thing to keep in mind: make sure you'se have the necessary kernel headers installed for the kernel you are compiling; I banged my head for a week or two over missing headers giving me all kinds of 'headaches'.

Hi,

i tried to run an existing Slackware 11.0 with Kernel 2.4 on a new AMD Athlon X2 3800 and had all sorts of unpleasent problems (no sound, no DMA, only 800x600, ...) till i installed Kernel 2.6. From there on it has worked (almost) flawlessly.

No compiling needed!

And even if you *want* to compile, is the config of the Slackware Kernel 2.6 a good starting point.

So, i think you may want to use Kernel 2.6 or even Slamd64, which is an (unofficial) 64-Bit version of Slackware.


Have a nice day

Pollyanna

The most important starting point is knowing your hardware. If you know your chipset, cpu and other basic components you can leave out many of the generic options and build the kernel to suit your machine, so I advise digging out your mobo book and having a good read.

I've never had any problems compiling the 2.6 kernels using the 2.4 headers originally installed with Slackware. Matter of fact, and this was probably true in your case, unless you have some specific hardware requirements you should never upgrade your kernel headers from the ones used to compile glibc. Pat V. agrees and has posted this warning about doing so.

FWIW,
MMYoung

MMYoung, the headers in the kernel-headers package have no effect on compiling a new kernel. The kernel sources include and use their own headers. The kernel-headers package is made up of some of the headers from the kernel which was used to compile the glibc version and the rest of the software in the release.

Yes, I have read all the info I could find about the kernel headers, including Pat's warnings etc.. I still have the 2.4 headers installed, however, try as I did, there was no way in heck that I could get the kernel(s) to compile until I installed the 2.6 headers along-side the 2.4 ones. Also, as per Pat's warning, I did for a while have to use a modem, and the modem drivers would NOT compile for 2.6 without those headers.
Ever since, everything has worked marvelously

I agree 100% with DIVE. Though in my case, my MOBO book is non-existant and/or devoid of useful info. I did a lot of browsing the net, including the MOBO manufacturers website and processor's website (MSI and Intel respectively) and both are excellent resources.
I definitely don't think I have an odd MOBO, however, it does have many more features built in than I ever knew about from my using Windoze..
I wanted support for my hardware sensors, onboard LAN, onboard audio, DMA & IDE chipset, and a bunch of other stuff including CPU features.
I can't explain the header situation any better, as I really don't know; but I have had near 100% success since installing 2.6 headers.
For the record, I have an MSI 6580 Max V2.0 mobo & i845G/PE chipset w/onboard Intel Pro10/100 (Rhine II) ethernet, C-Media & AC/97 Audio & Modem, Pentium-4 1.8 Ghz oc'd to 2.2 Ghz, w86327hf temp & fan sensors, and an nVidia GeForce4 MX440 AGP 8x video card.
Doing one's research on the systems components makes for a *very* good kernel compiling head-start.