[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: What is a Kernel?



On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 08:41:36PM +0300,
Moshe Zadka <moshez@math.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> I was horrified to find out that the kernel is "Required".

Yeah, I know how you feel. When I found out my motherboard _had_ to
have resistors on it, I was pissed. I think it's a conspiracy :)

> The official reason is "well, people compile kernels themselves". 

There's a reason it's official. Unless I'm missing something and
all debian users other that myself have the same hardware, then yes, 
people will recompile the kernel. If I have a 386 with 4MB of RAM for routing
and a new Quad Xeon 866 with 1GB of memory for rendering, I'm _not_ going
to want the same kernel on both of them. 

 
> Well, people might compile fileutils themselves, too. 

That isn't a valid comparison. Maybe if ls and cat had to have 
processor support compiled in then it would be, but that isn't the case.


> I think the packaging system has a big problem with understanding kernels.

No offence, but you seem to have the problem. 
 
 
> What we need is some /etc/alternatives-like interface to kernels, and
> have people installing kernels from .debs. They can still compile
> themselves -- apt-get source, make config, make debian package and
> install.

That already exists.
 
> Of course, that is not the only way to solve this problem.

I fail to see the problem.

-- 
Chris Welch <chaotic42@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~chaotic42/
http://www.bigplasticfork.org/

It's too nice a day to be stupid inside - Ren Hoek (Ren & Stimpy)

Attachment: pgpgqvYANxeep.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: