 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Invisible [mailto:voi### [at] dev null]
> I still don't entirely "get" why you would ever recompile the OS
> kernel.
> I mean, all it does is memory allocation, interrupt scheduling, etc.
> What's to change?
<sarcasm>
It's because the Linux crowd haven't figured out how to properly make
device drivers yet. Instead, the *kernel* is the device driver for
every single thing in your computer.
</sarcasm>
<serious>
If you ever need to add hardware, you have to recompile your kernel to
support it.
If you remove hardware, you should recompile your kernel not to support
it, otherwise it might be a kb or two larger than it needs to be.
</serious>
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:09:30 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Invisible [mailto:voi### [at] devnull] I still don't entirely "get" why
>> you would ever recompile the OS kernel.
>> I mean, all it does is memory allocation, interrupt scheduling, etc.
>> What's to change?
>
> <sarcasm>
> It's because the Linux crowd haven't figured out how to properly make
> device drivers yet. Instead, the *kernel* is the device driver for
> every single thing in your computer.
> </sarcasm>
>
> <serious>
> If you ever need to add hardware, you have to recompile your kernel to
> support it.
> If you remove hardware, you should recompile your kernel not to support
> it, otherwise it might be a kb or two larger than it needs to be.
> </serious>
>
> ...Ben Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com
Utter and complete nonsense. Or are you still using the 1.x kernels?
If your kernel is configured for modules (which I think all the major
distributions are - embedded Linux tends to use compiled-in drivers
because it's embedded and the hardware shouldn't change - in which case
the KBs worth of savings are incredibly valuable), then this isn't a
problem.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:23:06 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Try LFS, that'll really teach you a lot about linux, even if you don't
>> get a bootable system.
>
> Ugh. You just reminded me of my nightmares with LFS. I didn't
learn
> much, and mostly copied & pasted the commands. Got it to work. Never
> bothered to go forward with BLFS.
>
> LFS *is* good for learning. However, it and BLFS will probably
suck
> heavily if you want to use it as your primary system and maintain it.
> That's what led me to Gentoo.
Yeah, I would only use LFS and its derivatives to learn the internals -
but once started, I'd move on to a "real" distro, like Gentoo, openSUSE,
Fedora, or Ubuntu.
Personally, I went with openSUSE (after being a RH fan for many years).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Invisible [mailto:voi### [at] devnull]
> > I still don't entirely "get" why you would ever recompile the OS
> > kernel.
> > I mean, all it does is memory allocation, interrupt scheduling, etc.
> > What's to change?
>
> <sarcasm>
> It's because the Linux crowd haven't figured out how to properly make
> device drivers yet. Instead, the *kernel* is the device driver for
> every single thing in your computer.
> </sarcasm>
>
> <serious>
> If you ever need to add hardware, you have to recompile your kernel to
> support it.
> If you remove hardware, you should recompile your kernel not to support
> it, otherwise it might be a kb or two larger than it needs to be.
> </serious>
Seriously, have you guys ever heard of loadable kernel modules?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadable_kernel_module
Linux has not been a purely monolithic kernel for, what, more than a decade?
And if you don't need something, just unload it, not recompile the friggin'
kernel.
I've never had the need to recompile any kernel, despite hardware upgrades.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> OpenOffice takes couple of hours IIRC.
>> ...and OpenOffice must be absolutely gigantic.
>
> Yes, it is a mammoth.
>
> grunka ~ # du -hs /var/tmp/portage/app-office/openoffice-3.0.0/work/ooo/
> 2.6G /var/tmp/portage/app-office/openoffice-3.0.0/work/ooo/
Please tell me that isn't 2.6 GB just for the source code...
> grunka src # du -hs linux-2.6.26-gentoo-r4/
> 316M linux-2.6.26-gentoo-r4/
>
> That is non-compiled, non-configured set, ie. just kernel sources
> equipped with Gentoo's patchset. So yes, it is huge :).
Are you *kidding* me?? 300 MB just for the source code?!
Does it also make you coffee in the morning? :-P
>> Ah yes, I'm forgetting: The Linux "kernel" isn't just the OS kernel. How
>> silly of me...
>
> Linux kernel is a monolithic kernel, not a microkernel.
In other words, the Linux "kernel" isn't just the kernel, it's also all
the device drivers. No wonder it's so big.
>> (It probably contains drivers for every piece of hardware known to
>> mankind, even if you don't need it. And I'll bet even if you disable
>> those parts, it still has to process that part of the source code to
>> decide whether or not to compile it...)
>
> No, it doesn't :(. That's one reason why Windows is still much more
> widely used in workstations and especially in gaming computers.
Erm, no... I think you'll find that the reason why gaming computers use
Windows is that almost all games are written to run under Windows. :-P
I would suggest that DirectX is a way bigger reason than kernel support
for particular bits of hardware.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Was using Gentoo. And I'm pretty sure they give you a GCC binary
>> pre-built. (How would you build anything else otherwise?) Also the C
>> standard libraries, possibly. I can't remember.
>
> If it was a stage 1 install, I think they give you a prebuilt binary,
> but you then use that to compile GCC and switch to that.
Yeah, likely.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:493d9f82@news.povray.org...
> I really can't understand why some people seem to be constantly compiling
> the linux kernel.
Well if you're talking Linux I've not gen'ed a new kernel ever .... now Unix
that's a different story. The company I worked at had a very large installed
base. We settled on a desktop kernel and a server kernel. Some db products,
Oracle and Informix, required some kernel params to be bumped up. It's been
a while but I remember nproc, nfiles and a couple other params that needed
tuning. So I'd add that it's fairly common in Unix world, and from reading
this thread it would seem less common on Linux.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I still don't entirely "get" why you would ever recompile the OS kernel.
>> I mean, all it does is memory allocation, interrupt scheduling, etc.
>> What's to change?
>
> When I initially compiled the kernel after installing Gentoo, I had no
> DVD drive, and was also short a lot of other hardware. So I turned those
> options off. Later on, when I got certain hardware, I needed to enable
> those options.
>
> Lately I've had to connect to work using a PPTP VPN (evil stuff). I
> hadn't compiled PPTP support in the kernel. So: Recompile. Another time
> I needed to use DAV. Not enabled in kernel - so I compiled.
In Windows you just install a driver, why do you need to recompile the
kernel?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> Please tell me that isn't 2.6 GB just for the source code...
No, I won't.
> Are you *kidding* me?? 300 MB just for the source code?!
No and yes.
> Does it also make you coffee in the morning? :-P
No, at least not yet. I drink my morning coffee at work, so I have
coffee maker drivers disabled.
> In other words, the Linux "kernel" isn't just the kernel, it's also all
> the device drivers. No wonder it's so big.
Yep.
And for someone else who wondered if no kernel modules are known, yes
they are, but before explaining that it's easier to explain the whole
thing in general.
> Erm, no... I think you'll find that the reason why gaming computers use
> Windows is that almost all games are written to run under Windows. :-P
Yes. And one reason *for that* is that porting games to Linux has been
freaking difficult, eg. since past years ATI and nVidia both on theier
turns have been missing GFX-drivers for Linux. They both have raised
theier heads recently, so there is a chance to see that scene raising
also. It'll still take at least a while, so don't hold your breath while
waiting.
> I would suggest that DirectX is a way bigger reason than kernel support
> for particular bits of hardware.
There can't be anything like DirectX, if there's no support (drivers)
for the hardware.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>
> I have full merge history in /var/log/emerge.log
>
> To parse it, emerge genlop. I use genlop all the time for estimating
> build times, etc.
>
Nice, thanks for the tip.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
