I have a newbie to Linux question. I think that the forum can explain it. When I install Linux with a Linux distribution, it loads Linux and it does a hardware scan on my machine and it loads the modules that it needs to boot up. What I do not understand and what does not make sense is why can't it then load the kernel that is best for my machine instead of this generic kernel that runs so slow?

1) I think that the distribution can make 100 different kernels or can make 10 different kernels and depending on my hardware can select the one, or allow the user to select one from a list of compatible kernels by showing the size of the kernel and the included stuff. This way when you install Linux from the distribution, it would be so much faster.

2) I have read about modules and how you can install modules that you need to the kernel. You can also uninstall modules that you do not need. I do not understand why the kernel that you use in Linux from the distribution can not be a simple and skinny kernel that you then load whatever modules that only your hardware needs. Then it would be so much faster.

3) I envision a distribution as having a menu item that lets you select what you want in the kernel and then selecting it. At least it should have use a) default fat kernel, b) skinny kernel with needed modules.

_____________________________________________
What if ALL machines came with your choice of Linux?

My mom and dad said that "Life is not logical".

When life gets you down, don't worry, give it the Penguin.

Do you think it is a good idea to support millions of different kernels according to millions of possible variations of hardware components. And what size of distribution we will have in this case?

What's the problem. Recompile the kernel: add modules that you need and delete that you don't need.

And many distributions now allows you to choose kernels (e.g. generic-kernel, huge-kernel and so one)

I am not talking about millions of kernels. Just 100 or 10 or 2. With modules. The one fat one and one skinny one = 2. The highest 8 common plus fat one plus skinny one = 10. The 98 most common plus fat one plus skinny one = 100.

If someone help me, I do it.

But what's the problem to rebuild kernel under your needs? It is more flexible, I suppose.

Building the kernel is difficult. You have to figure out how to configure the hardware. When you install with a distribution installation of Linux, then you load Linux and it does a hardware scan. It finds the modules you need, so why can't it select the kernel you need or a compatible kernel from severel pre-built ones?

You can still build a kernel even if the distribution has option to use skinny kernel for your hardware with modules.

IMHO This would require HOURS to install the distribution and still require modifications

Let's say that an average kernel with lots of options is 40mb. Let's further say that most people will have, at most, 3 kernels on their system. That's 120mb which isn't eating up too much space. Now you are saying there should be 100 kernels - that's 4000mb or almost 4Gb. If you have a small hard drive (and let's remember that a lot of people use Linux to revive an old PC or laptop) that's an awful lot of space.

And then let's think of the poor sods who have to package and keep updated this 4Gbs of kernels - and then think of the poor sod trying to download their OS on a slow connection and remember that instead of grabbing a 700mb CD, they would have to download a DVDs worth of data just to get a kernel.

Not really practical is it? And there will always be a need for more kernels because of differing requirements, differing hardware and that one piece of hardware that only works in Windows 95 and requires special drivers written by Tibetan monks.

Far easier and far more efficient: we all recompile our own kernels as necessary.

@XavierP
Out of curiosity, what units standard you are using? It is an international forum and to avoid ambiguity SI should be preferred, I think? In SI m as prefix means milli - one thousandth. Plural and singular are written the same, no s. That is 10 kB is ten kilobytes, 100 km is hundred kilometers, etc. I went to school in Europe and we had SI in fifth and sixth grade. Sorry, but not distinguishing between lower- and upper-case seems terribly illiterate to me.
Everybody interested in correct prefixes please visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI

Since we are talking computing, SI doesn't necessarily apply - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megabyte and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigabyte I would also venture to say that whether I type MB, Mb or mb it is still clearly understandable that I mean megabyte because of the context I say it in.

Wouldn't SI be better though? I've seen a thread here where someone complained his network speed is xyz mbps. The first question from a helper was whether this is megabytes or megabits per second. There is a standard to avoid such a confusion, why not use it.

Because I never have done and because the vast majority of the people I encounter don't either? Most people will say "megs" or "gigs", in my experience, so why confuse either them or me by changing things?

Now if I were in a position or role where that sort of thing really mattered it would be different.....

There seem to be some big gaps in eduction system - mostly in English-speaking countries, because of Imperial measurement is still used. Vast majority of people who you encounter do not use correct units because they do not know them and they make up their own. Are you serious saying teaching them does not make sense? Changing from anarchy to organization is not the way to go? Mathematics and physics are beautiful sciences, don't you think?
I think you are in such a position here at LQ.

Argh, I feel I need a vacation from LQ, I'm getting too involved. Do your thing in your way, none of my business. Sorry for chiming in with this.

No, it's a useful discussion. Teaching them obviously makes sense, however, when I was taught computing, networks were called MUDs and BBSs and the idea of gigabit LANs was science fiction. Also, my education path rendered the correct terminology irrelevant and I find that I can make myself understood with the terms I use.