Kernel 386 installed instead of 686

[Matt Patterson]

Ubuntu ships with a lot of precompiled kernel modules, this requires a 
standardized kernel. This is one of the MAJOR improvements that ubuntu 
introduces to linux. Why do you think it is so easy to have standardized 
drivers in windows? Because the kernel NEVER changes. Thus by running 
the default kernel you are guaranteed to have the same thing that the 
developer and tester had. I am very happy about the standardized kernel 
and was disappointed to find that the hoary install dvd seems to be 
smart enough to install different kernels. No one really notices the 
speed improvement between 386/686/k7 anyway unless you use extensions 
like mmx/sse, or have a smp system as I do. So why not try and make 
things standardized?!?

Matt



Adrian Petrescu wrote:

> This is normal -- for some reason or other, Ubuntu has always shipped 
> the 386 kernel by default.
>
> It is perfectly safe to install the 686 kernel as well. It will be 
> automatically added to the grub boot menu so you can select which 
> kernel to boot.  If you like it and want to remove the old one, it is 
> also safe.
>
> Enjoy =)
>
>
> Filipe Bonjour wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Breezy is the first version of Ubuntu I installed, and I hate to say, I
>> love it.
>>
>> I have tried several other distros before though, and there is something
>> that I find strange with Breezy: The install program installed
>> linux-image-2.6.12-8-386 (upgraded to 9-386 since) instead of
>> linux-image-2.6.12-8-686. It's the first time I see a distro not install
>> the kernel compiled for a P4. I have a Dell Inspiron 9200 with a Pentium
>> M 1.7 GHz.
>>
>> Is this normal? Did I miss an install option?
>>
>> Also, Is it safe to install the 686 kernel at the same time as the 386?
>> Checking the file list, it seems all files have the full name, including
>> "386" in their path.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Fil
>>
>>  
>>
>
>