K, I just fixed a kernel problem. But while I was doing it I had to switch from source rpm's of the kernel to a standard binary kernel rpm. What is the difference?

I understand that the source rpm will simply give you the source that needs to be compiled, but why not just use a binary, does it kill customizability? Does the binary rpm basically install a number of defaults, whereas a source rpm allows you to choose?

Mike.

The difference is like between eating at McDonald$ and dining at a good restaurant.
At McD you'll put your snout in the bucket and be Gone In 60 Secs, while with dining you look at the different things on the menu, order, and those things are then prepared and served For You To Savour (also now you can talk to Angelina without the fat dripping from your mouth). Which is all in all a whole other level of gratification :-]

Also, some outlets (vendors) will put stuff in the food to keep you hooked on it (I mean patches ofcourse) whereas with restaurants it's strictly natural and fresh ingredients...


IMO, unless you're dealing with a specific prob, that can only be dealt with by using a binary, roll your own. Building from source often makes a leaner, meaner kernel, you get to know your stuff, and it's always good to know you're running a self-built trusted binary.

oh.. but what if everything looks nice @ the good restaurant, but the food is uneatable?

I can't get my recompiled kernel running under RH 7.1
I've tried on and off for 5 dayz now..

It's all fun n games till you boot the new kernel and your pc dies..

Now I know how the services that I'll be installing on my server are working and I could quickly set it up under Win2k, so why do I have to be bothered with all these problems..

The way I see it is:
if you want a c++ programmer to write a program. Do you ask him to write his own compiler first?

yeah yeah yeah... I know it's free and I shouldn't complain. However I choose to do so anywayz
Cause I still find a major lack when it comes to being user friendly. I'll almost call it hostile...
The way the documentation is presented is terrible (and what's with all the half finished documentation.....FIXME. lol) and all the things you'll have to go through when installing even the smallest things is no good..

However I'll keep trying cause I don't have a choise. So much for the freedom to choose

I'm good @ complaining ain't I?

Warning... warning... warning... possible flame war approaching !!


You will find that compiling your own is a bit of a matter of taste, and that there are some how think that you definitly should and some who think you shouldn't.

The Kernel is designed to run on many hardware platforms, and to load extra bits of code to run various hardware stuff when it is not required very often (these are the modules).

When you get a pre-compiled rpm, it has to be for your hardware but a 386 kernel will run on a 686. It may also require the loading of a module to drive your network card. The problem you will have with this is that the kernel may contain code you do not need and may take longer to run. I am not convinced the majority of home users will be worried about this performance difference.

Compiling your own lets you move code out of the kernel and into modules, and vice versa. It also gives you a kernel compiled for your own hardware. This must make it perform better.


I don't know if anyone has any measurements of the differences, but I have other things to do before kernel compilation. This may come later, but who knows.

Joe

I'm not flaming any1..
I'm just saying that I find it fustrating to work with Linux, cause I need to play around with unnessesary many things to get it running..
That's fine for the ppl who find it fun or interesting. And it nice that you can customize almost everything..
But for me it's just plain annoying that you can't avoid having to do it. I don't have time for all these problems..

Sorry if you thought I was accusing you.

I was suggesting that there are people in the Linux world that expect everyone to recompile everything, and others that don't see why anyone should need to.

I am in the second camp. My belief is that Linux has to move into a more friendly approach to the masses, and that means not getting too technical all the time. Whilst it may not quite be there at the moment, it is quite close, but it takes too much to find the information you need.

I want my computer to do what I want it to do, and to be able to fix it when it breaks. Anything else is a project for my spare time (and I don't have much of that!).

Joe

naa.. I didn't think that.

But better safe than sorry, you never know who might post next