The Official LQ Poll Series continues. This time we want to know: Do You Compile Your Own Kernel or Use The One Shipped With Your Distribution?

--jeremy

I've tried compiling my own kernel in the past but usually ended up with some problems, like network issues.

Years ago I would almost always compile my kernel. But in the last 8 years or so I have been using the stock distro kernel. Running Linux Mint I see little reason for me to compile a custom kernel.

1 members found this post helpful.

I compile all my kernels from the latest git versions.

When I first started using Linux in 2000 I always compiled my own kernels. I usually build my computers from second hand parts. In the early days when memory was typically fairly small I compiled my kernels in order to reduce their memory footprint and thus speed up my computers. I stopped doing so when memory became very cheap and the kernel began using loadable drivers.

------------------
Steve Stites

3 members found this post helpful.

Using Debian Sid I tend to have fairly current kernels to install but I do still compile the latest stable kernel "the Debian way" to see how things are going. I needed to do so with my current day-to-day laptop as the drivers for the touchpad in the then current kernel didn't work so now I compile my own now and again to check it out.

1 members found this post helpful.

I almost always compile my own kernel. Though honestly, I've never noticed any performance differences. About all I do is change to the deadline block i/o scheduler, set it to preemptive, disable control group scheduler and a few minor tweaks. Never seems to make any difference, so my motivation to do so has dwindled these past few years.

It depends on the distro, doesn't it. If there's a stock kernel, I generally use it. Why make extra work for yourself? But two of the three systems on my main computer (Crux and LFS) require you to build your own kernel. It's still the distro kernel in the sense that I use the source provided, but I can take the opportunity to cut out a lot of cruft, making for a faster boot -- and of course no initrd.

On the laptop, I have Dragora (which I hardly ever use and plan to get rid of eventually) and Nutyx. The Nutyx stock kernel uses an initrd and tries to set up a framebuffer console that plays merry hell with my chrome video card. So in that case, I was forced to build my own alternative kernel and that's the one I use.

1 members found this post helpful.

I use the ones that came with my distro. Generally speaking, they work, they're fast enough for me, so there's no motivation for me to compile my own.

In my opinion, when you use any 'distro,' you need to very carefully consider what "the division of responsibility between the two of you ... distro-provider, and you ..." ought to be.

There are, basically, four credible alternatives:

1. Linux From Scratch ... which is just what it says.
2. Gentoo, which is a distribution that requires you to compile everything, but that provides you with what to compile.
3. "Binary distribution" distros ... the usual gang of idiots ... ...
4. Corporate models such as Red Hat and Canonical.

If you choose to compile things, yourself, when you have selected "doors #3 or #4," you have just introduced "a fly in their ointment." Suddenly, those people don't know (and ... can't know!) exactly what software is on your system. Their very-convenient binary updates, which are quite-necessarily built against "what every one of our client's machines must look like," suddenly cannot be depended-on to work anymore.

Therefore, although this is (of course) entirely a thing that you are entitled to do, and that you can do, you should carefully evaluate both the inherent risks, and the return on investment (ROI). "Exactly why have you decided to do this? And, all things considered, is it (to you) worth doing?"

3 members found this post helpful.

The first Linux I had was RH-5.1, had to patch the kernel to make my sound card work. Having fun since ...

Nope, don't.

Slackware provides the "huge" kernel as the default. It also provides the "generic" kernel for those so inclined to compile their own. The huge kernel includes everything (as modules), the generic you roll your own to customize, reduce size, only have drivers for your existing hardware, that sort of thing.

Given that the system recognizes the hardware and includes the appropriate modules, well, why bother? Today's machines are vastly different from years ago, plenty of RAM, plenty of disk, runs just fine with the huge kernel and I don't have mess around configuring and compiling (usually a couple or three times when I did). I could care less about a few seconds, my time is worth more than that.

Hope this helps some.

3 members found this post helpful.

I like most used to compile my own kernels for functionality with certain hardware, but I haven't seen a need to do some in the last several years. I can see the need if working on an embedded project, but I am much more likely to break something these days than improve on it.

1 members found this post helpful.

I allways use the kernel shipped with my Sabyon

I use the default kernel. Sometimes (a few years ago) I built/compiled my own one, but nowadays I use only precompiled ones.