Aaron Konstam wrote: >> I admit I am not a great fan of Fedora kernels - >> I normally compile my own from the vanilla kernels >> (I haven't got round to 2.6.22 yet) >> and I have never found a distribution kernel from Fedora or anyone else >> which worked any better for me than the standard kernel. >> (I've found many that worked worse.) >> >> I regard the kernel and the distribution as more or less orthogonal. >> If I actually had to run a non-standard kernel in order to run Fedora >> I would probably move to another distribution. >> Not a common point of view, I'm sure, but mine. >> >> > If you really want to know what changed in between these kernels, take >> > a look at the changelog or the cvs. Hint: it's not a typo. >> >> I'm not sure where one finds either of these - >> presumably with the kernel source? >> (I looked at the developer's URL you gave, but didn't find anything >> there.) >> >> I did think of downloading the two kernel sources, >> and comparing the SPEC files, >> but decided life was too short. > I am sorry if someone (Tim maybe) is offended but the above contains the > most amazing statements. To say they kernel is orthogonal to the > distribution must be close to the most amazing statement ever made on > this list. The kernel is central and is the most important part of the > distribution. I used to compile kernels,and boy that was a waste of time > unless you really know what you are doing. I suggest you take a moment to consider what I actually said. As far as I am concerned, any Linux distribution consists of a large number of applications using the Linux kernel. These applications should - and in fact always do - work with any current kernel. I don't know of any Fedora application that only works with a Fedora kernel, or in fact that works better with a Fedora kernel than with the corresponding vanilla kernel (2.6.22.1 against 2.6.22.1-41). Do you? As I said, if Fedora started shipping applications which only worked with a modified kernel, I would stop using Fedora. I'd also doubt if it should be called "Linux". In my view, a "Linux distribution" is a collection of applications which work with a Linux kernel. > To engage in kernel compiling and not know where to find the changelog > of the kernels is even more strange. Sigh. I know where the changelog for a vanilla kernel is found - with the kernel source. I was asking where one found the changelog describing the difference between the distribution kernel, say 2.6.22.1-41 and the corresponding vanilla kernel, 2.6.22.1, without downloading the distribution kernel source. This was explained to me by Rahul. (As a matter of interest, did you know where to find this?) Though actually, I found that changelog more or less useless, as it seemed to mix up changes to the vanilla kernel with changes to the distribution kernel. Since you claim to be such an expert, did you look at it? If so, you'll be able to tell me at once what mistake was made in the 2.6.22.1-33 kernel. I guessed that it was probably a typo, but Rahul said it was not. 3 or 4 short pieces of code were added in 2.6.22.1-33, and then removed in 2.6.22.1-41, but I couldn't work out which caused the error. Maybe the Fedora kernel developers couldn't work that out either, and just removed whatever they had added? > I hope no one else decides it is useful to tinker with the Fedora > kernels because, I guess, they think the people who create Fedora > kernels really don't know what they are doing. They are compiling a kernel which will work on any machine in the world. If you look at it you will see it comes with hundreds of modules, the vast majority of them completely irrelevant to any individual user. I am compiling a kernel which will work on my machine. I am not "tinkering" with a Fedora kernel. I am compiling the standard Linux kernel. Have you ever actually compiled a kernel? Have you ever looked at the SPEC file for a distribution kernel? I've never found any case where a distribution kernel worked any better than the corresponding vanilla kernel, and many cases where it worked worse. Unless you have compiled a vanilla kernel, I don't see how you can offer an opinion on the difference. The reason for this is simple. A distribution kernel has to work on thousands of different machines, and so in many cases has to choose the lowest common denominator. For example, when you compile a kernel you have to specify the CPU type, and there are a couple of dozen choices. The distribution kernel developer has to choose the most generic type. So either Linus Torvalds' team has put in a lot of useless options, or something is lost in using the distribution kernel. Incidentally, compiling a kernel is not brain surgery, as you seem to believe. You just get the source from www.kernel.org, choose your options and say "make". Then "make modules_install" and "make install". Admittedly, choosing the options takes some time if you start from scratch; but I always save the options I've used before, and there are usually only a couple of changes needed to the previous set. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
