From: kenc@sol.acs.unt.edu (Ken Corey - Operator)
Subject: Re: Whining...I don't want to hack on the kernel
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 13:11:06 GMT

vince@halcyon.com (Vince Skahan) writes:

>[...semi-soapbox on...]
>There *ARE* people who want to investigate Linux as an out-of-the-box
>unix system that they can do stuff with, and who are quite willing 
>(and grateful) to have somebody get their jollies by compiling all the 
>sources and making a kit that they can use (to get their jollies by getting
>their application(s) running, serving as real-world users and testers, etc.).
>I guess it bugs me that the folks who want a stable o/s and compiler
>that they can use to build (or port) software get pounded on in c.o.l.
>as being 'beneath' the folks who are building functionality into the
>kernel.  Both are equally valid users of the o/s.

This is *very* true!  There *are* equally valid, yet different users of
Linux.  However, if you'll take a look at most of the pounding messages in a
slightly different light, most of the pounding came when people wanted
conflicting things:

 1) Stability for use in non-hacker projects.
 2) The absolute most latest whiz-bang kernel/GCC
 3) The once a week update to program xxxx.

It has been said many times that if you want stability, then find a version
that does what you need it to do, and stick with it for a little while, and
don't try to "keep up with the joneses" as far as versions go.

Yes, I'm following my own medicine.  I'm still using GCC 2.2.2b, and Linux
.96pl4 (I think, been a while since I looked) because of the fragility of
the ST01/02 support code right now.  I don't feel like hacking, and this
kernel does what I need.  Great.  End of statement.  I won't upgrade for a
while.  Why moan about not being "current"?  Because .a files won't easily
compile?  Heck, they're not any more reliable than regular source code. 
(see my next paragraph.)

>The guys who have built the various canned installable sets of goodies
>such as mcc-interim, SLS, the 'rootimage' disk, etc. have done a great
>job.  I'm willing to use the fruits of their labor (as a very grateful
>user) and spend my limited time trying to port the stuff I want to
>run, or to put all the pieces together as a system that does something
>I want it to do. 

Yeah, this is a nice idea, but out of all the .a files I tried to download
(probably 20 or so), I only got one to compile and link properly.  The rest
didn't work, and I ended up getting the sources and recompiling from scratch
myself.  I *know* things work that way.

>Building kernels is not necessarily great fun.  Once you do a few, it
>gets kind'a boring doesn't it?  I think making patched compiled kernels
>available to stick over the latest mcc-interim (or whatever) is a great
>idea.
>I don't *WANT* to be the local expert in all the obscure non-standard
>gcc flags, just so I can build a darn program.  I want plug'n'play tools
>that I can assemble (ie...mcc-interim+new_kernel+mailpak+perl) to get
[...]
>but I'm also very willing to use mailpak, etc. and say "thanks!!!".

Of course it's not fun.  However, with all the changes floating around,
there's no way to guarantee compatibility for all the old library calls and
whatever, SO, when a kernel is changed, or a GCC and its library is
changed, it's gonna break things in other ways with stock releases like MCC. 
Like it or not, if you're gonna use Linux, you're almost going to HAVE to do
a little hacking to get your setup just the way you want.

Also, though kernel hacking is no fun, it's much more fun than setting up
the "current" version of Linux, and recompiling ALL the utilities desired,
and then uploading that, and then finally makeing it publicly available. 
I know that for now, I've other things to waste time on...;)

>The fact that those folks did a great job doing their parts in no
>way means that I'm less of a valid user for saying "thanks a million"
[...]
>man pages, etc.  They're just as important...
>[...semi-soapbox off...]

Yeah, this is true.  Everyone is important.  The only problem is: who is
going to provide the labor to make everything stable between versions
(especially when those versions are coming out every week)? 

I *still* say, Stay a few releases behind the "cutting edge", and compile
from sources, not .a files, and you'll be much happier.
-- 
Ken == kenc@sol.acs.unt.edu == kenc@vaxb.acs.unt.edu
 Hurewitz's Memory Principle:
 	The chance of forgetting something is directly proportional
 	to ..... to ........ uh ..............
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux