Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #14079 > unrolled thread
| Started by | ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-03-14 19:59 -0400 |
| Last post | 2015-03-17 01:52 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 78 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-03-14 19:59 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2015-03-15 11:11 +0100
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben <nowhere@nowhere.nor> - 2015-03-15 21:14 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2015-03-16 10:02 +0200
Re: Learning about the Kernal Ruben Safir <mrbrklyn@panix.com> - 2015-03-17 00:18 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-03-16 20:53 -0700
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-17 05:14 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-17 05:23 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-16 21:58 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-17 05:21 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-17 10:51 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-17 09:10 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-03-17 14:12 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-17 19:03 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-17 19:08 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-17 15:17 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-20 01:06 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-19 23:52 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-20 10:52 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-03-20 20:33 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-04-20 09:48 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-17 15:08 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-18 03:36 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-18 10:09 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-20 01:04 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-20 10:58 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-20 09:22 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-20 18:39 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-20 20:04 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-20 21:10 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-21 05:03 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-20 18:42 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2015-03-20 15:31 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-21 05:13 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2015-03-21 09:13 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben <nowhere@nowhere.nor> - 2015-03-21 14:40 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2015-03-21 12:20 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-21 19:54 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> - 2015-03-21 17:56 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-21 19:56 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2015-03-21 16:18 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2015-03-17 16:10 +0200
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-03-17 14:06 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-17 19:00 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Tim Watts <tw_usenet@dionic.net> - 2015-03-17 19:05 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2015-03-17 14:17 -0700
Re: Learning about the Kernal William Unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2015-03-19 06:04 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-21 08:45 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-21 08:20 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-21 16:09 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-21 20:10 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2015-03-17 22:39 +0200
Re: Learning about the Kernal Chick Tower <c.tower@deadspam.com> - 2015-03-18 03:35 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-21 08:47 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-03-21 20:19 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-21 20:30 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-03-22 20:05 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-03-23 01:16 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-03-23 20:27 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-25 02:57 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-25 02:59 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-03-25 20:59 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-04-20 09:44 -0400
Re: Learning about the Kernal Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-03-22 00:07 +0100
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-22 00:07 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-03-22 01:13 +0100
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-22 03:11 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-03-22 04:20 +0100
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-22 13:19 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2015-03-22 15:13 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-03-22 21:52 +0100
Re: Learning about the Kernal Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> - 2015-03-22 20:13 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-03-22 22:01 +0100
Re: Learning about the Kernal Chick Tower <c.tower@deadspam.com> - 2015-03-23 04:02 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2015-03-23 05:13 +0100
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben <ceo@iran.gov> - 2015-04-12 13:03 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <dont@email.me> - 2015-03-17 05:18 +0000
Re: Learning about the Kernal ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> - 2015-03-17 01:52 -0400
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-04-20 09:48 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mh303k$c7u$2@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14176 |
On 03/20/2015 04:33 PM, Jerry Peters wrote: > You could always write a custom install script. Make install looks for > 'installkernel' in /root/bin and IIRC /sbin, if it finds it, make > install uses that in preference to its own install recipe. noted
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-17 15:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <me9u23$49a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14122 |
ruben safir <ruben@mrbrklyn.com> writes: > On 03/17/2015 09:10 AM, Dan Espen wrote: >> ruben safir <dont@email.me> writes: >> >>> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 21:58:30 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: >>> >>>> Is that the "advice" you are looking for? >>> >>> I suppose the advise I was looking for was what is folks best experience >>> to handling custom kernel builds and hacking, including the alerations >>> that have to happen in grub I want to set up a comfortable methodology >>> to write, compile, install, boot, run, test >> >> "alterations in grub"? >> >> Can you be more specific. > > so the OS has grub set with a cofig that allows for it to boot in a > pretty way (obviously) Still not very clear. Are you referring the "prettyness" that each distro imparts buy having grub2 display different splash screens? That's hardly alterations in grub. > Manjaro has its standard kernels listed under "advanced options" Manjaro is at 0.9 something. That would not be my choice. Never the less, most distros have source debs or rpms and set procedures for doing so. > I need to add my own to their list. I guess. Not sure though why. Fedora for 32 bit has a PAE and non-PAE vernal, but the 64 bit Fedora only has one and I don't see why it would need any more. Still, there should only be one set of source, and instructions on how to build different kernels. >> If you are trying to learn something low level, you need to focus >> in on specifics. >> >>> and remix > > I ment that then I need to code, compile, run and test again and again. I see. Well, code/compile/run is not called "remix". You need to communicate better. >> Linux secure remix? Don't know much about it or why you >> just threw that out. >> >>> The make file is still trying to run lilo. >> >> What makefile? >> Makefiles are not going to "run" lilo. > > but > make install does. It must be in the Makefike, or make wouldn't try > executing /sbin/lilo Might make sense if it's running: /sbin/lilo -M which can create the master boot record. But I'm a bit confused at anything current using Lilo. Lilo entered ancient status way back. >> They might build lilo but since you don't mention a distro >> or anything specific I'm still in the dark. >> > It is Manjaro with openrc Ah, openrc. Are you trying to avoid something with systemd? Bad approach if that's what you are up to. Get something more mainstream. Everything will be much more likely to work. Really, it's been ages since I had to compile a kernel, but find a major distro, Fedora/Ubuntu, etc. You'll find lots of online guidance on how to download and compile the kernel source. Then you'll be able to find the scheduler code in the kernel source tree and start making alterations. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ruben safir <dont@email.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-18 03:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mearr5$i83$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14127 |
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:08:33 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > Manjaro is at 0.9 something. > That would not be my choice. > Never the less, most distros have source debs or rpms and set procedures > for doing so. it is my choice, however, because they have a nice lightweight working version that is relatively up to data and runs on openrc rather than systemd. -- The Coin Hangout: http://www.coinhangout.com/home
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-18 10:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mec0ta$qnl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14135 |
ruben safir <dont@email.me> writes: > On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:08:33 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > > >> Manjaro is at 0.9 something. >> That would not be my choice. >> Never the less, most distros have source debs or rpms and set procedures >> for doing so. > > it is my choice, however, because they have a nice lightweight working > version that is relatively up to data and runs on openrc rather than > systemd. Well, if you consider no systemd a benefit, good luck with your 0.9 software. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ruben safir <dont@email.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-20 01:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mefrn5$qc6$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14141 |
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 10:09:30 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: >> it is my choice, however, because they have a nice lightweight working >> version that is relatively up to data and runs on openrc rather than >> systemd. > > Well, if you consider no systemd a benefit, > good luck with your 0.9 software. that is an ignorant thing to post. -- The Coin Hangout: http://www.coinhangout.com/home
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-20 10:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <meguh3$q9c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14141 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > ruben safir <dont@email.me> writes: > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:08:33 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > > > > > >> Manjaro is at 0.9 something. > >> That would not be my choice. > >> Never the less, most distros have source debs or rpms and set > >> procedures for doing so. > > > > it is my choice, however, because they have a nice lightweight > > working version that is relatively up to data and runs on openrc > > rather than systemd. > Well, if you consider no systemd a benefit, > good luck with your 0.9 software. Yes Dan, we all know you consider systemd the next best thing since sliced bread. But, not all of us share your opinion of systemd. For those of us who do not like it, our reasons may vary, and you may disagree with those reasons, but the fact is we do not like it one bit and do not ever want it on our systems. Therefore, for those of us who do not like systemd, then having no systemd is indeed a huge benefit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-20 09:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <meh6u0$onu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14166 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: >> ruben safir <dont@email.me> writes: > >> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:08:33 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: >> > >> > >> >> Manjaro is at 0.9 something. >> >> That would not be my choice. >> >> Never the less, most distros have source debs or rpms and set >> >> procedures for doing so. >> > >> > it is my choice, however, because they have a nice lightweight >> > working version that is relatively up to data and runs on openrc >> > rather than systemd. > >> Well, if you consider no systemd a benefit, >> good luck with your 0.9 software. > > Yes Dan, we all know you consider systemd the next best thing since > sliced bread. > > But, not all of us share your opinion of systemd. For those of us who > do not like it, our reasons may vary, and you may disagree with those > reasons, but the fact is we do not like it one bit and do not ever want > it on our systems. > > Therefore, for those of us who do not like systemd, then having no > systemd is indeed a huge benefit. Yes, and systemd is completely irrelevant to working on a kernel scheduling algorithm. Which is my point. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ruben safir <dont@email.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-20 18:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mehph0$aj0$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14167 |
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 09:22:57 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: >> Therefore, for those of us who do not like systemd, then having no >> systemd is indeed a huge benefit. > > Yes, and systemd is completely irrelevant to working on a kernel > scheduling algorithm. Which is my point. I agree, almost. It is not directly involved by the openrc distro is lighter and has less hooks and is a smaller footprint and runs faster on a virtual box and is just all around easier to handle. And that is why I choose to use it. There is a lot of binding between the kernel and systemd, but more importantly to me is the small foot print, and ease of installation. for this project. Ruben -- The Coin Hangout: http://www.coinhangout.com/home
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rich <rich@example.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-20 20:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mehufu$u0h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14167 |
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: > >> ruben safir <dont@email.me> writes: > > > >> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:08:33 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> >> Manjaro is at 0.9 something. > >> >> That would not be my choice. > >> >> Never the less, most distros have source debs or rpms and set > >> >> procedures for doing so. > >> > > >> > it is my choice, however, because they have a nice lightweight > >> > working version that is relatively up to data and runs on openrc > >> > rather than systemd. > > > >> Well, if you consider no systemd a benefit, > >> good luck with your 0.9 software. > > > > Yes Dan, we all know you consider systemd the next best thing since > > sliced bread. > > > > But, not all of us share your opinion of systemd. For those of us who > > do not like it, our reasons may vary, and you may disagree with those > > reasons, but the fact is we do not like it one bit and do not ever want > > it on our systems. > > > > Therefore, for those of us who do not like systemd, then having no > > systemd is indeed a huge benefit. > Yes, and systemd is completely irrelevant to working on a kernel > scheduling algorithm. True. > Which is my point. Fine, but that was not at all clear (in fact, it was completely missing) from what otherwise looked like a below-the-belt systemd insult.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-20 21:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <meigci$4o2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14175 |
Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: >> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes: > >> > Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> ruben safir <dont@email.me> writes: >> > >> >> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:08:33 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> Manjaro is at 0.9 something. >> >> >> That would not be my choice. >> >> >> Never the less, most distros have source debs or rpms and set >> >> >> procedures for doing so. >> >> > >> >> > it is my choice, however, because they have a nice lightweight >> >> > working version that is relatively up to data and runs on openrc >> >> > rather than systemd. >> > >> >> Well, if you consider no systemd a benefit, >> >> good luck with your 0.9 software. >> > >> > Yes Dan, we all know you consider systemd the next best thing since >> > sliced bread. >> > >> > But, not all of us share your opinion of systemd. For those of us who >> > do not like it, our reasons may vary, and you may disagree with those >> > reasons, but the fact is we do not like it one bit and do not ever want >> > it on our systems. >> > >> > Therefore, for those of us who do not like systemd, then having no >> > systemd is indeed a huge benefit. > >> Yes, and systemd is completely irrelevant to working on a kernel >> scheduling algorithm. > > True. > >> Which is my point. > > Fine, but that was not at all clear (in fact, it was completely > missing) from what otherwise looked like a below-the-belt systemd > insult. Not at all. I'm reading this as someone that has a difficult task in front of them. I've never looked at the scheduler, but I know it's gotten a LOT of attention. To make any kind of significant change that accomplishes something is going to be tough. Just the measurement sounds hard. I thought he should pick the best tools for the job. That's why I questioned the 0.9 product he chose. He came back with: "runs on openrc rather than systemd". That seemed totally irrelevant and illogical. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ruben safir <dont@email.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-21 05:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <meiu3h$il$4@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14178 |
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 21:10:25 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > I thought he should pick the best tools for the job. > That's why I questioned the 0.9 product he chose. He came back with: > > "runs on openrc rather than systemd". > > That seemed totally irrelevant and illogical. because youy have never compiled your own kernel.. -- The Coin Hangout: http://www.coinhangout.com/home
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ruben safir <dont@email.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-20 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mehpmk$aj0$2@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14166 |
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:58:43 +0000, Rich wrote: > Therefore, for those of us who do not like systemd, then having no > systemd is indeed a huge benefit. systemd is not the operating system I want to use. This guy doesn't know how to compile a kernel withouth OS specific tools so what does his opinion of system even matter. Ruben -- The Coin Hangout: http://www.coinhangout.com/home
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-20 15:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mehshg$lhv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14172 |
ruben safir <dont@email.me> writes: > On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:58:43 +0000, Rich wrote: > > >> Therefore, for those of us who do not like systemd, then having no >> systemd is indeed a huge benefit. > > systemd is not the operating system I want to use. This guy doesn't know > how to compile a kernel withouth OS specific tools so what does his > opinion of system even matter. I think I've had enough of you. You don't know what I know or don't know. I thought you would find more help and less problems sticking with mainstream stuff, but you know better. -- Dan Espen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ruben safir <dont@email.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-21 05:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <meiul2$il$5@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14174 |
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:31:45 -0400, Dan Espen wrote: > I thought you would find more help and less problems sticking with > mainstream stuff, but you know better. I am, but you just don't know it. You flew into this without knowing what you were talking about. You asked a completely irrelevent question, which got a completely irrelevent answer, of course.and now are complaining about it. I'd spend the time trying to explainthis too you, but I don't think you would understnad it anyway. But to spell it out in plain language, what I'm asking about and doing has NOTHING to do with distro that is being used. The best thing the distro can do in this case is stay out of the damn way so that I can play with the Kernel source code and compile it. As to the next question you would have, which is why I would want to do it, the answer would be because I CHOSE TO. Really, learning about Kernel compilation and coding is not a criminal matter and is a NORMAL endevour for GNU/Linux users. So I am not looking to lern how to use a distrodution's customs hacked kernel. I'm trying to learn to use a standard source code kernel. like we used to in the old days before Debian and Umbuntu was around...especially the later. Ruben -- The Coin Hangout: http://www.coinhangout.com/home
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-21 09:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mejcns$4j1$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #14180 |
On 21/03/15 05:13, ruben safir wrote: > Really, learning about > Kernel compilation and coding is not a criminal matter and is a NORMAL > endevour for GNU/Linux users. No it isn't. Not for USERS. It might be for hobbyists administrators and geeks, but most people just want a desktop that works. -- Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. – Erwin Knoll
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ruben <nowhere@nowhere.nor> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-21 14:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mejvsk$8tn$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14184 |
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 09:13:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 21/03/15 05:13, ruben safir wrote: >> Really, learning about Kernel compilation and coding is not a criminal >> matter and is a NORMAL endevour for GNU/Linux users. > > No it isn't. Not for USERS. It might be for hobbyists administrators and > geeks, but most people just want a desktop that works. > > you don't speak for most people. You don't even speak of some of the people. And what you wrote is disgusting, marketing dribble that didn't address the point. Keep reading this until you actually understand it. This is not a Microsoft forum. THIS is Free Software and we treat users with respect. Learning about Kernel compilation and coding is not a criminal matter and is a NORMAL endevour for GNU/Linux users.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-21 12:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <alpine.LNX.2.02.1503211210240.27870@darkstar.example.org> |
| In reply to | #14185 |
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015, ruben wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 09:13:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > >> On 21/03/15 05:13, ruben safir wrote: >>> Really, learning about Kernel compilation and coding is not a criminal >>> matter and is a NORMAL endevour for GNU/Linux users. >> >> No it isn't. Not for USERS. It might be for hobbyists administrators and >> geeks, but most people just want a desktop that works. >> >> > > you don't speak for most people. You don't even speak of some of the > people. And what you wrote is disgusting, marketing dribble that didn't > address the point. Keep reading this until you actually understand it. > This is not a Microsoft forum. THIS is Free Software and we treat users > with respect. > But look at you (I'm assuming you are the original poster now under a differnet name), you ask about the kernel, but then go off about grub2. It's still not clear where your problem lies, the two are distinct. You should be playing with multiple kernals that are already compiled, like from your distribution, then play with grub2 to make a multiple boot system. Once you get that figured out, you can go on and compile kernels. In the old days, it was almost mandatory to compile the kernel for a new system. You needed to have the right drivers for the hardware you had, and maybe more important, you didn't want a bloated kernel. Now, it's mostly all included, and the "average" computer has so much RAM and hardware space that a large kernel doesn't matter. So at this point, anyone wanting to compile a kernel is doing it for some specific need, maybe the challenge, maybe they have some obscure hardware, maybe they are just interested in making it smaller. But most people can live with the bloated kernel that comes with any distribution. Even when compiling a kernel, most people are just customizing. They aren't writing new bits to the kernel, or modifying the code, they are simply telling the compiler to produce a selective version of the overall kernel. If you know nothing of initrd, then you need to read up on it. It provides some things during the boot process. Modules are a different thing, it allows one to adjust hardware without having it all tossed into the kernel. And one thing to watch is that some distributions apparently fiddle with the kernel, so if you don't use their source, you end up with a non-working system. While other distributions, like slackware, use the off the shelf kernel, so one can pull from kernel.org (with the warning someone pointed out, you can't mix and match a kernel with the libraries, there is a level of interaction). But I see no indication that you are ready to be compiling a kernel. Get grub2 going. You can even do that with the same kernel, duplicate it and then get grub2 to select between the two kernels, you'll see no difference but if you are doing it right, the system will boot with either. And dont' expect hand holding on the part of the distribution. Compiling kernels is now esoteric, so you won't find a utility that compiles and sets up grub2 all in one operation. You need to learn first. > Learning about Kernel compilation and coding is not a criminal > matter and is a NORMAL endevour for GNU/Linux users. > No, but it involves learning and trying things, and actually doing work. Michael
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ruben safir <dont@email.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-21 19:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mekia1$evu$10@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14187 |
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:20:34 -0400, Michael Black wrote: > So at this point, anyone wanting to compile a kernel is doing it for > some specific need, maybe the challenge, maybe they have some obscure > hardware, > maybe they are just interested in making it smaller. But most people > can live with the bloated kernel that comes with any distribution. I have news for you. It was no easier or harder back in the late nineties to load an OS than it is today. And when you go to the shelf today and grab COTS hardware, it is HARDER, not easier to get it to work because so much of the system is now obsfucated from the user and the dependency of binary blobs has skyrocketed, and standards have been abandoned. If you don't want to learn to use your kernel, to compile it, to understand how it fits in with the rest of your system, it is no sweat off my brow. Just don't get uppity when I want to actually learn how these things fit together, like a normal person who depends on these systems for real work would want to. As for the observation about grub2 and kernel compilation question, OBVIOUSLY the two are directly related which is why LILo was run from the make files at one time. grub and grub2 sucks. It adds complications without reason and wastes time that can be better prent doing work. Ruben -- The Coin Hangout: http://www.coinhangout.com/home
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-21 17:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3161ub-dak2.ln1@raspberry-pi.bildanet.com> |
| In reply to | #14194 |
On 03/21/15 15:54, ruben safir wrote: > On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:20:34 -0400, Michael Black wrote: > >> So at this point, anyone wanting to compile a kernel is doing it for >> some specific need, maybe the challenge, maybe they have some obscure >> hardware, >> maybe they are just interested in making it smaller. But most people >> can live with the bloated kernel that comes with any distribution. > > I have news for you. It was no easier or harder back in the late > nineties to load an OS than it is today. And when you go to the shelf > today and grab COTS hardware, it is HARDER, not easier to get it to work > because so much of the system is now obsfucated from the user and the > dependency of binary blobs has skyrocketed, and standards have been > abandoned. > > If you don't want to learn to use your kernel, to compile it, to > understand how it fits in with the rest of your system, it is no sweat > off my brow. Just don't get uppity when I want to actually learn how > these things fit together, like a normal person who depends on these > systems for real work would want to. > > As for the observation about grub2 and kernel compilation question, > OBVIOUSLY the two are directly related which is why LILo was run from the > make files at one time. > > grub and grub2 sucks. It adds complications without reason and wastes > time that can be better prent doing work. > > Ruben > > > Or just move to FreeBSD... the sane way to do things
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ruben safir <dont@email.me> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-03-21 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mekidv$evu$11@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14187 |
On Sat, 21 Mar 2015 12:20:34 -0400, Michael Black wrote: > But I see no indication that you are ready to be compiling a kernel. so then don't answer. -- The Coin Hangout: http://www.coinhangout.com/home
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web