Problems loading new kernel

Basil Chupin blchupin at
Thu Oct 21 05:53:29 UTC 2010

On 20/10/2010 21:39, Joep L. Blom wrote:
> Basil Chupin wrote:
>> On 20/10/2010 20:10, Joep L. Blom wrote:
>>> I'm updating ubuntu karmic (9.04) and although I know that it is maybe
>>> more sensible to upgrade to Lucid I first want this problem solved.
>> So, you now have 3 days before support for 9.04 ends. And you need to
>> upgrade to a more recent version of Ubuntu - but you don't say which one
>> you are going to upgrade to.
>> And, in your question, you only mention the hassle with the kernel.
>> So, what exactly are you trying to do (except that your post is
>> suggesting that you don't want anything to do with Maverick [10.10] let
>> alone even Lucid)?

> Basil,
> Thanks for replying.
> No you didn't miss anything but I'm one of those rare birds who want to
> know why an error occurs before continuing.

You have to understand that when someone asks a question in this list - 
or any other list - there will be people who are in a position to answer 
the question BUT, at the same time, they have heard such questions 
before and are very wary of answering them because the question itself 
sounds very suspicious.

To me, that suspicion was answered by what you just wrote, "[I] want to 
know why an error occurs before continuing". In other words, you were on 
a fishing expedition - because you were simply curious.

> There are other kernel problems with Karmic I have at the moment so
> upgrading is maybe the most sensible way. However, why not Maverick?
> Well, this is my main station and I cannot miss it (sure everything is
> daily backed up using backuppc) for a few hours and Maverick (omen est
> nomen??) is not stable yet.

Why isn't Maverick "stable yet"?

Personally I found Maverick stable even at the pre-RC stage.

For ME it is doing everything perfectly, without a hitch.

I don't what you use your Ubuntu for but I don't use it in any 
commercial environment - simply home use on my own and my wife's computers.

But, all my HDs are installed on cradles, and I have several sets of 
HDs, so that I, for example, have so-called "stable" 10.04.1 installed 
on one set and the so-called "unstable" Maverick on another set. 
Therefore I am not handicapped by the choice of what to use as my "main" 

>   Moreover, I generally prefer LTS

Why, may I ask? Are you using Ubuntu in a commercial environment? The 
only difference between a normal release - like Maverick - and LTS - 
like 10.04.1 is the "support" time.

>   and the
> problems with Karmic ( in the beginning) are still in my memory.

Every release has its problems.

And always will have.

The only real affect of a release is the impression given by some people 
on how it affects these particular people and how much and how loud s/he 
complains about any real or perceived problems.

> But if I don't find an explanation, I will upgrade to Lucid.
> Joep

Good luck, but I think if that the only thing which is driving you is 
curiosity, but not real problems, then perhaps asking same in the kernel 
development list would satisfy your curiosity.


"If it weren't for electricity we'd be all watching television by candlelight."
                 George Gobel

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list