Greg KH wrote:Running a vendor kernel has the advantage of reusing all the QA work that has gone into that kernel. It is very different from running 2.6.24-rc1 (or 2.6.22.x). Hence projects like centos: you don't get any support, but the likelihood of actually requiring support is lower than running some random kernel. [but I agree that someone who has somehow determined that they need a specific LSM will probably have determined that they need vendor support as well] -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -
| Peter Zijlstra | Re: Problem with ata layer in 2.6.24 |
| david | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Bart Van Assche | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Andi Kleen | Re: [patch] Add basic sanity checks to the syscall execution patch |
git: | |
| Johannes Schindelin | Re: git on MacOSX and files with decomposed utf-8 file names |
| Junio C Hamano | Re: [PATCH resend] make "git push" update origin and mirrors, "git push --mirror" ... |
| Morten Welinder | Re: [Census] So who uses git? |
| Steven Grimm | Segmentation fault in git-svn |
| GVG GVG | ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host |
| frantisek holop | nptd regression in 4.2 |
| Josh Grosse | Re: Real men don't attack straw men |
| peter | ntpd not synching |
| Jim Winstead Jr. | Re: Root Disk/Book Disk Compatibility |
| Dong Liu | Re: CXterm for LINUX |
| erc | HARDWARE COMPATIBILITY LIST |
| Douglas Graham | Re: Buggy omit-frame-pointer? |
