FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included

[Ken Johanson]

Lew Bloch wrote:
> Gene Heskett wrote:
> 
>> The original poster needed a wakeup call, ...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately the OP all but promised to ignore anything anyone replied, 
> so undoubtedly missed the very simple answer that was provided early on.
> 
> It's a shame if true, because they posted their plaint implying a desire 
> for enlightenment, but if they ignore the replies they shall remain 
> benighted.
> 

Wrong-oh. The responses here have shown protectionist, possibly juts 
zealtotous reponses merely for *defending* a distro that doesn't provide 
the source to the kernel that it has running. This is akin to moving to 
a country where you're told you'll have rights by their constituion - 
but gess what -- you cant have the constitution. The constitution, like 
the kernel source, is the heart -- the foundation of everything. 
Foundation. Linus himself has tore into redhat for this very krop.

So from the responses I've seen, its quite clear that they've never 
compiled or customized one -- one young zealot even claimed I should "go 
back to windows", which is *exactly* the level he's on, having no idea 
why the kernel source is providied in the first place. Clearly a genric 
kernel and modules fits him just dandy, just like windows.

Again, no kernel source, no constitution - and that means something to 
hide, just as the kernels authors have asserted.

Again, zealots need not apply.