The distribution tree releases kernel packages for upgrading to the 2.6.x kernels.

My questions is... What are the pros and cons of installpkg vs compiling.

Are there speed differences? And if you do installpkg how does it configure the kernel for you?

I'm asking because I have a new laptop with a wifi that requires the 2.6.x kernel to work. I've done the compile before but installpkg is just so easy with other packages.


Thanks =)

I can't find really pros and cons of installpkg vs compiling a kernel with slackware as
slackware use non-patched kernel but there are true reasons to compile yourself the
kernel, like :
- the default kernel has not some features you want
- the default kernel has too much feature for your taste

And some true reasons to installpkg a kernel
- it is faster than compile
- it should work 'out of the box'

If you don't patch, you will hardly see some differences in speed and even if you
apply the patch of the death, the difference will be minimal

Well I haven't done this before myself but installpkg puts on pre-compiled packages so probably includes a load of stuff you don't want/need and is probably set to the wrong processor type (386) so that it is compatable with virtually any computer. If you're not too worried about screwing that last bit of performance out of your computer the pre-compiled way is a lot more convenient.
Adam

Installpkg
Pro: Easy
Con: See your own question for the answer. Though if you want to know, all you really have to do is look at the config file from the package.

compiling
Pro: Kernel custom tailored to your system.
Con: If you've never compiled, you will be forced to learn a whole lot about your system, kernel compiling, and Linux in general... or maybe that's a pro, too.

I prefer compiling on my own so that my system doesn't load unnecessary modules etc, but I always have the default kernel installed as a backup if something goes wrong somewhere.