lucid and 2.6.33?

[Chris Cheney]

On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 18:01 -0400, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 15:41 -0500, Patrick Goetz wrote:
> > Flávio Etrusco wrote:
> > > Seriously? Ubuntu is not only about techies, it's about general
> > > use(rs) and businesses too. They have to have a solid and well-tested
> > > base.
> > > If you really wanna know what you're actually getting, you have the
> > > sources and the changelogs.
> > 
> > It's not clear to me how a handful of folks at Canonical or RedHat 
> > splicing and dicing kernel code from one version into another 
> > necessarily gives you greater stability than an officially released 
> > kernel that has been thoroughly tested by thousands of kernel hackers....
> 
> First, it's not just a "handful of folks".  You should read up on the
> testing labs that both Canonical and Red Hat have in place.  I wonder,
> these days, how many people _really_ compile their own kernel directly
> from kernel.org anymore?  Obviously the kernel devs do it, and probably
> some folks using more "tuner" distros like Gentoo.  But how many is
> that?  I used to do it all the time but it's been years since I needed
> some new feature enough to spend the effort of compiling my own kernel,
> rather than just using what came with my distro and waiting a few months
> for the next distro release.

Probably not too many people are using the upstream kernels anymore as
the upstream kernel guys themselves don't even recommend using their
kernel, or at least used to recommend against doing so.