[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included
- From: Thomas Cameron <thomas cameron camerontech com>
- To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list redhat com>
- Subject: Re: FLAME____ Why is the kernel source not included
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:56:48 -0500
On Fri, 2004-10-15 at 20:20 -0600, Ken Johanson wrote:
> You are *right*... but so is saying that the vast majority of the users
> wont need - half of the stuff thats put on a distro. Now where you and I
> draw the line on a package being needed may be different but it wont
> change, until schools stop teaching courses on how to build a custom
> kernel, or users needing special hardware builds or secuirty. And your
> position that they can get it from an external source is also right. But
> how convenient you see that will differ from what I perceive.
For the VAST majority of users, the silly toys (the "half the stuff" you
refer to) are more desirable than kernel source. For academics, they
will likely learn about the FC/RH kernel and the kernel.org kernel, so
they will be on the 'Net anyway.
You're just being contentious. The kernel source is readily and easily
available. If a user is going to build a custom kernel for hardware or
security purposes they are obviously a power user anyway and they can
get to the kernel trivially.
> Rebuiling the kernel is more popular than ever, and needed with the
> build system changes (driver updates), and ever expanding array of
> hawrdware options.
Rebuilding the kernel is *less* common today. The stock FC kernel has
so many modules available that it is very rare that you are going to
have to rebuild the whole kernel. At most, you might have to build a
custom/third party kernel module, but that doesn't require the kernel
Also - if you install a piece of hardware that isn't supported (the
Gig-E card to which you keep referring) and then you can't get to the
Internet because of it, well, you've made your bed. Do some research,
make sure that your hardware is going to work before you install it.
Or if there is some reason you know you are going to require a custom
kernel, get the .src.rpm beforehand. I am really not sympathetic to
people who shoot themselves in the foot with all the resources out there
(the archive of this list, Google, redhat.com, etc.).
> On a separate disc or download is what you're saying...
Sure, just like 100% of all the other source RPMs.
> Thanks!!! Many thanks!!! But this has time and time again been pointed
> out, and not disagreed with by myself, though it wanders from the point
> of immediate availability.. Why are you interjecting what so many people
> have stated and I have never refuted???
Mountain/molehill. It's a small extra step. What is wrong with you
that it is such a big deal? You have acknowledged every point I (and
everyone else who's chimed in) has made, but somehow we're all still
wrong because YOU claim it should be part of the base install. There
have been numerous explanations as to why this is not necessarily the
best case but you've ignored them.
> Your analogy to the Constitution is
> > just plain silly. Guess what? Here in the US you are guaranteed
> > Constitutional protection but you are not promised a copy of the
> > Constitution. You have to go download it, check it out at the library,
> > or buy a copy of it. Similarly, there is nothing at all preventing you
> > from obtaining the kernel source with no more effort than it takes to
> > obtain a copy of the Constitution.
> You know, this "bitching" that you describe wouldnt be here if it were
> always so easy to get the source.
OMG - you have obviously put your head in the sand. I give up. You
refuse to even acknowledge reason, much less listen to it.
Oh, and your "Constitution" argument is still wrong (funny how you
haven't responded to that).
> I'm convinced, you probably cant
> coudn't recite most the reasons that have been argued in favor of
> including the source on the installers, either because you're havent
> read the whole thread (I dont blame you)
I've read the whole thing, laughing out loud at your insistence on
clinging to the wrong position in contradiction to countless clear
explanations as to why you are wrong.
> or find it easy to bitch-back
> and the side of the majority, who are being defensive of their distro
> (no blame there either). Either way, your opinion will differ from mine.
Um, not my distro. I am vendor agnostic, as you can probably tell from
my .sig. The FC team have made a decision for all the right reasons.
It has been cussed and discussed over and over and I think that they
make a lot of sense. I will concede that there is a degree of
inconvenience in having to download the src.rpm, but I think you have
make a huge mountain over a tiny molehill and now you are just arguing
to read your own posts.
I will say again - you are blowing a tiny change way to Hell and gone
out of proportion. You are being argumentative for no good reason.
I refuse to feed this troll any more.
A: Because people read from top to bottom
Q: Why is top posting bad?
Thomas Cameron, RHCE, CNE, MCSE, MCT
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]