Re: how to edit the kernel....make menuconfig???
ktb <x.y.f@home.com> writes:
> > If these Debian patches are so great, why aren't they in the official
> > kernel source?
> >
>
> Because the patches didn't exist when 2.2 was released. That is the
> nature of a patch. For the most part patches are created to fix
> bugs that were unknown when the original was released.
OK, so these are official kernel.org patches then? Or something else?
> > There's too many Unixes as it is, why have more than one Linux?
> >
>
> Unix/Linux is a tool. Do you use only one tool when fixing a car? No, you
> use the right tool for the right job.
> kent
Hm, not sure I buy this comparison. When fixing a car it's usually
pretty clear whether you need an Allen key or a Philips screwdriver or
whatever. The choice between Redhat and Debian, or even the choice
between Solaris and GNU/Linux, is nowhere near this clear. I guess
Unix is like a toolbox, except there are many different brands of
tools and the various brands are only vaguely compatible with each
other. If only it were possible, as you suggest, to pick and choose
tools from various brands of toolboxes.. unfortunately, this doesn't
work: you wouldn't normally take a Solaris box and add the Debian
package manager to it, for example.
My main problem with software, and especially free software, is that
there's too *much* choice -- which suggests to me that none of options
are really very good. Sort of like, say, Christianity: there are
hundreds of different flavours, they all claim to be The Right One,
and they all disagree with each other. (This argument doesn't
necessarily hold in reverse: for example, there is only one Microsoft
Windows, and yet public opinion suggests it's far from perfect.)
With software, I'm hoping this is something that will improve over
time. For example, if you type 'ls' at a Solaris box and a GNU/Linux
box, you can expect to get the same result. Presumably this is because
'ls' has been around for 30 years, and has more or less
stabilized. Some things have not stabilized yet: 'tar', for example,
will give different results on Solaris and GNU/Linux.
The Linux kernel is a tool that is good for one particular job:
running a Unix workstation. (It is not so good for other jobs, like
real-time heart monitoring, for example.) For all I know, the Debian
kernel patches may be a A Good Thing (TM). The reason I bristled at
the idea, in my previous post, is this: the Linux kernel strikes me as
a Good Tool (TM), and I like to see Good Tools standardize, rather
than fork into many competing flavours. I like to be able to compile
my Linux kernel and my friend's Linux kernel, and get that same warm
fuzzy compatibility feeling that I get from typing 'ls' on different
kinds of Unix boxes. *That's* security.
Forget about protecting your box from imaginary teenage hackers. The
real threat is in the form of legions of benevolent programmers,
wielding the power to make your computer forever incompatible with
anybody else's.
-chris
Reply to: