FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included

[Ken Johanson]

You are right, they plan to distribute them on the SRC rpms and not the 
install discs. From a file-type (source code vs binary) perspective, 
this make sense.

But in the real world the source is just as important as the binary 
kernel itself - it allows you to "tweak" your kernel in allot of ways, 
some performance related (opinion varies), some hardware compatibility 
related (you may need to build modules *into\* the kernel to boot 
certain devices), security related (removing untrusted/unneeded modules 
from the core), and even just to to incremental upgrades/bugfixes 
(downloading only updated module instead of the whole source lib).

This "flexibility" and openness of the kernel is arguably 
linux/BSD/etc's most powerful feature, bar none. It puts the user in 
control. That's why I and others liken it to a country's constitution, 
to be prominently displayed and upheld. The kernel and source should be 
inseparable.



Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 12:00 -0600, Ken Johanson wrote:
> 
>>But my cage rattling is about "Why is the kernel source not included", 
>>not lack or headers. If I could have just rpm/bzipped the source from 
>>one of the discs we wouldnt even be here right now.
>>
> 
> 
> I've been attempting to read up on and understand this issue since the
> flamewar started. Am I correct in thinking that the kernel source code
> can now be found in one of the SRPM packages? If so, then it's still on
> the disks, right? So Red Hat *does* distribute them?
> 
> Note: I am aware that the SRPMS disks are a different set, and that
> someone would then have to download the binary ISO images plus either
> the kernel SRPMS independently or the SRPMS ISO images as well. However,
> it sounds like a more-consistent approach since all source code is found
> in SRPMS rather than in binary RPM packages.
> 
> What, if anything, am I missing?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
>