I read someone that people are thinking that the newer kernels are getting inflated because they are including extra stuff like multimedia. But is that really an issue? To me if it is too big for someone's liking they could just compile a custom kernel with only the stuff they need? I could see it being an issue for the people that are developing linux so it is more user friendly because th people switching from windows to those distros wouldn't know how to compile a kernel or probably have the interest to learn. But i think if they made the newer kernels very modular and had a user friendly gui system to handle the modules then that would be less scary to windows users who switch. Just curious what other people's thoughts were on this subject.

I agree...

While a lot of people here don't..

It seems sometimes people use Linux because it's "cool" or because it's "not windows".... Whatever the reason, a gui can sometimes get in the way of everything...unless you're a newbie coming to Linux from OSX or Windows.

The first time I compiled my kernel I freaked out, I didn't know what the heck was goign on and what everything is (I still don't).. a gui program would have helped me at first, but I think it's vital to leave the text configs in for later, as they can be incredibally more powerful.

I really haven't had a problem with my linux kernels, I mean, it's a monolithic kernel, I expect it to be a bit bigger than a micro..

Even if you recompile it 2.6 kernel is bigger than a 2.4 one...
First explanation, you can't compile 2.6 with gcc-2.95, and gcc-3.X seems to produce bigger exec than gcc-2.95 (for example for my 2.4 kernel the difference is about 100Ko between gcc-2.95.3 and gcc-3.3.3)
Second explanation, the new features in some parts in the kernel... for example to improve network stack or module management (with lock mechanism)... that's progress so that's normal there's more code to compile so bigger exec... but RAM increases faster than Linux kernel size, so no need to worry

"but RAM increases faster than Linux kernel size, so no need to worry "

Yeah i didn't think about that. How big is the kernel compared to windows'? That is one thing i thought might be a reason for the compliant because people couldn't use that as an advantage of linux over windows. Although my computer is about 4 years old and linux runs great on it. I can even do stuff like Blender with it. I have noticed increased access times but im pretty sure that is because of a aging hdd (still the original) I heard that Longhorn is going to need to be run on a computer with 3+ ghz and 512 ram in full visual mode because of all the 3d menus and what not. So i guess even if linux develops more as a desktop it still will be tiny compared to Longhorn. (hate that name by the way)

Yes I also do not understand why Microsoft always do soft that consummes more and more CPU and RAM... whereas even if Linux is a bit bigger you can still run it on an embedded system if you use µClibc/busybox, a proper compiled kernel and a light X server with a light windows manager.
In fact only rich people can afford running a Microsoft system 'cause if they want to keep their system updated, they have to regularly buy a new license with the latest PC

Ya, if I lived in Texas I would file a class-action lawsuit against M$ for degrading the name Longhorn................


All kidding aside.........IF Linux is to become more user friendly for joe-sixpack.........the Kernel compiler needs to be more GUI'ish.......the leap from 2.4 to 2.6 was incredible..................
I still use 2.4.29/2.4.30..because 2.6x has too much extra garbage that I don't want/need/ or use.............

I don't see it as a problem. We all scream and shout when features are missing, but others complain that the kernel is too big. Its always going to be difficult to please everyone, but for Linux to function well on the desktop and also on servers, certain features have to be added and unfortunately this will result n a bigger kernel. I am not bothered by this as long as it works.