[ncolug] Re: libc6 during the install

  • From: Chuck Stickelman <cstickelman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: ncolug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:58:12 -0500

Michael K. wrote:
> Yeah, I get that.  What I mean, is why would I build only to my
> hardware.  As was talked about elsewhere,  one of the beauties of
> linux is that when you change platforms you don't need to reload.

Reloading an OS/Distribution is TOTALLY different than adding a few
modules here or there.
When someone builds a kernel - you, me, someone from Ubuntu - that
person has to decide what hardware support to build into the package. 
When it came to USB printers I mistakenly thought I'd never need it.

For a laptop building only the features that's built onto the
motherboard is reasonable, then add the peripherals you might need/want.

The alternative would be to build everything under the sun.  I guess my
point there is why? 

>
> On that same line, why would you want to build such a slim ammount of
> hardware support.  I just don't understand.  The decent reason I've
> heard as a reason for building kernels is to get the most recent
> kernel instead of letting your distro package it for you.  Other than
> that, what do I get.
A chance to choose.  You can choose what you want to support and what
not.  Be careful not to exclude something you'll want when you're in
some public forum! :)

>
> Some say that performance is gained... from everything I've read on
> this I disagree.
If you're building a bunch of things into a kernel statically, then
you'll be wasting some RAM and opening yourself to some quirkiness's if
any of the drivers aren't solid.

> Some say security.  Again, if they're adding hadware they've got
> physical access... so they own the machine.  I am just looking for
> some logical reason to limit what hardware my machine supports.
>
Look, if you want to build your own kernel, then do it and add support
for EVERYTHING possible.  Make all that you can modules and then explain
how good you feel about having >90% of them never get used.  What's the
point in that?

Here's a real example for my laptop.  I can guarantee that I will NEVER
install a PCI SCSI card of ANY flavor in my laptop.  Why would I want
PCI SCSI support?  Now, I *may* want a PCMCIA/PCCARD SCSI device at some
point in time.  Maybe.  So now I have to choose whether or not I should
build that as a module.  If I do and never use it, ok.  If I don't and I
end up needing it in the future I can always compile the module.

> YES, I usnderstand the need of needing to compile my own kernel
> modules.  I'm the proud user of a laptop with an AIT video card, and
> for a long time I needed to compile my own kernel module.  I
> understand the requirements of adding support for new hardware.
>
> Mike K.
>

Chuck


Other related posts: