I compile my own kernel only when I need to, and that is an increasingly rare event these days.
I use Salix, Slackware, CentOS and Mint - all of which provide kernels that do the job on all my hardware.
I also use gentoo on a machine that needs to be as fast as possible, and that is compiled.
All in all, I don't see the need these days (although perhaps I should keep doing it just for the experience...)

Most of the kernels and modules that I had compiled in the past, were for the job.
Since about 2.6, I do no longer compile kernels as I did not want to adapt to the latest changes and the job did not ask for it, nor do I buy a machine before the compatibility of all components with current kernels and available drivers is assured.

I have compiled kernels in the past, for oddball hardware. But normally - always, in recent years - the stock kernel has been adequate.

Using stock from distro.

Compiling your own kernel is actually quite easy, start of with the config file from your host system ( Slackware's 'Huge' config is ideal ) as it will have all the bits you need to start off and then just slowly remove the bits you don't need, you will soon find out the important bits, and you can get rid of all the stuff you don't need or will never use.

1 members found this post helpful.

In the past year I have compiled my own on two machines. The reason on both was the graphics adapter and the drivers would not work together without a patch to the kernel. In both cases the patch existed, and finding it was the hard part.

I took the stock config, applied the patch and re-compiled the kernel. I have no other reason compile a kernel though.

Has compiled in 2000, it was necessary for some of the hardware, but later I won only a few seconds to start up. This is not the time for it. Now I think about it again, because the USB does not return to sleep after.

ubuntu 16.04 lts

sundialsvcs

This is exactly what you have written is really good. If you could offer me an operating system optimized for multimedia and graphics, which I will be very happy and I'm thinking how to thank you (I'm a carpenter, sculptor).This is exactly what you have written is really good. If you could offer me an operating system optimized for multimedia and graphics, which I will be very happy and I'm thinking how to thank you (I'm a carpenter, sculptor).

I use and compile the generic kernel for testing - and normally in a VM.

Rarely have I (in the last 20 years) needed to compile the kernel for a specific patch, but it occasionally happens.

Most of the time the distribution kernel is fine.

I use kernel Slackware. Only Slackware is KISS and Patrick Volkerding his prophet

I also used to compile my own as an experiment, but now there seems to be no advantage to compiling or using the stock kernel - stock is fast enough, everything works, if it aint broke don't fix it!!

One problem is that, while the Source packages are supposed to exactly correspond to the binaries, sometimes they don't.

Also, when you compile it yourself, you might not select exactly the same configuration-options and/or compiler switches that the distro publishers actually did. These differences can be important.

Bonus Question: Is there anyone still active at LQ who used the -lq kernel patchset? If I recall correctly the last release was in late 2002.

--jeremy

I have compiled kernels before. But since going back to Slackware I am using the stock generic kernel with initrd. That is on my desktop where it is almost never powered down or rebooted, so no real need imo to compile. Now when I get a new laptop I will absolutely compile the kernel.

Use the shipped kernel. Have not found any reason to require compile it myself.

Depends what distro I'm using. I grew up on Slackware where I compiled my own kernel and got quite good at it. Only adding what I needed making it much more secure. Now a days I use CentOS for most of my stuff and enjoy the ease of use of yum. Basically I'm lazy now but if I need to deploy something with security in mind I will compile it myself.