[CentOS] newbie kernel question

Sun Apr 2 01:08:53 UTC 2006
Bogdan Nicolescu <bo2k2 at yahoo.com>

--- "William L. Maltby" <BillsCentOS at triad.rr.com>

> On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 00:44 +0100, Ian mu wrote:
> > People are still seemingly deciding whats "right"
> for a person without
> > knowing their situation.
> That is an *assumption* (and you are not the first
> or only guilty)!
> What is going on is the normal course for a project
> that has a certain
> goal and/or viewpoint. That is, one tries to educate
> people about
> options that they may be unaware of in the current
> context.
> NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT! Further, they may try and
> provide some
> underpinnings that may convince the requester that
> there is value in the
> decision made by the project participants.
> When the requester comes back with sarcasm,
> statements indicating what
> *everybody* else should want to do ("... everybody
> should want to
> rebuild their own kernel..."), etc... well, you can
> see where I would
> take that.

> >  No one is asking for support on a kernel they've
> compiled themselves,
> > nor are they expecting it. They aren't going to
> slap Centos when a
> > problem arises from it and blame them.
> >  
> > Just some situations sometimes seem to require it.
> One thing I'll
> > likely be doing in the near future is changing the
> kernel frequency
> > for example, and as far as I know its only
> possible with a recompile.
> > Its unlikely it will break much, but if it does,
> thats on my head, and
> > thats fine. I won't be asking the list why my
> recompiled kernel
> > suddenly has a fault unless its the same on a
> default kernel of which
> > I intend to run both, depending on requirements.
> >  
> > I fully understand its not a Centos Supported
> issue in that sense due
> > to its position, but isn't this mainly what this
> email list is for as
> > well (i.e to bounce ideas, problems, solutions
> between each other who
> > have hit a problem and possibly come up with a
> solution albeit
> > official or unnoficial whatever that means in this
> context)? 
> In spite of all you state above, it is *very* common
> that after the
> requester sails off and does his own thing, he then
> appears on the list
> later on complaining that things don't work and
> asking for help. And
> then criticizing when it turns out he was burnt by
> his ignorance of the
> projects philosophy, goals and design decisions.
> So although all you independent folks don't
> understand why replies are
> as they often are, there may be good reason.
> And I am a hardened LFSer who loves doing my builds
> of *everything*. But
> I don't expect CentOS to support that (if I ever
> asked, haven't yet)
> without letting me know that there is a "better
> way", in terms of their
> operational design.
> This is not directed at you, but I must say it for
> others. As Jim(?)
> said, if CentOS philosophy, design, implementation,
> support, ... is not
> for you, other projects may be more appropriate.
> Others have complained
> about having to work through the undesired parts of
> the answers and
> said, in effect, "Just tell me what I want to here
> and shut up about the
> other stuff".
> Doesn't work that way. I hope it never does.
> >  <snip>
> MHO 
> Bill
> > _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


"[sarcasm]And all this time, decade+, I though the
ability to recompile especially the kernel was the
main difference/advantage between a source based O.S.
and a binary-only O.S. I don't know how you came out
with the statistics but I have a funny feeling you are
100% wrong.[/sarcasm]"

What was intended to be under sarcasm, was carefully
delimited.  Everything else was not sarcastic.

I have no problem with a project's philosophy, but
when different signals are being sent out, and
conversations on the topic end up either in history
lectures, aggressive tones and/or closed threads, than
I want to find out as quickly possible who or what I'm
dealing with.

If Centos' philosophy is to discourage recompilation
for whatever reason, than they should say so.  But
that is not the signal I see from this post:


Simple question... simple defintive CAPITALIZED answer
(speaking of net properness)... but then god forbid
someone asks "How?" because you get a lecture in
everything else except on how.  

Jim thank you for the leads.